Show Timesheet To Budget Configuration

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations by detailing error payload behavior (401/403/404) and the default for company_id, plus the return type as a 'single JSON object'. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is appropriately sized, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds necessary context (usage, default, return type, read-only, errors, endpoint). It is somewhat dense but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage condition, return type, error handling, and API endpoint. It does not detail return fields, but the 'full field set' phrase and 'single JSON object' are sufficient for a simple show operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers company_id 100% with its own description. The description adds the defaulting behavior ('company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted'), which is useful, but it conflicts with the schema marking company_id as required, creating ambiguity. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it 'Retrieves a single timesheet' and specifies usage when you already know which timesheet you want and need its full field set. It distinguishes from list/create/update/delete siblings, but the endpoint resource is 'timesheet_to_budget_configuration' while the description says 'timesheet', creating mild ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you already know which timesheet you want and need its full field set,' giving a clear usage condition. It also mentions company_id defaulting to procore_set_config when omitted, but does not name specific alternative tools for listing or filtering.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.