Show Trade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' explains default behavior for company_id, and details common error responses (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is moderately long but highly informative, with each sentence adding value: purpose, usage context, defaults, return type, error semantics, and endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but no sentence is redundant.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers when to use, how to resolve the id, default behavior, return type, read-only nature, error scenarios, and the API endpoint. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly without needing additional details.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and that id must refer to an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This helps the agent understand parameter relationships and prerequisites.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the details for a specified Trade.' It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting this is for when you already know the trade and need its full field set, which distinguishes it from list_trades or create_trade.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('when you already know which trade you want') and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to choose correctly.

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