Show Unit Of Measure

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' details error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and their meanings, and discloses the company_id default behavior via procore_set_config. This goes well beyond what annotations alone 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is verbose and includes redundancies such as 'Returns a single JSON object describing the unit' (restating the purpose), 'Read-only — it changes nothing' (already covered by annotations), and 'Required parameters: company_id, id' (already in the schema). While the structure is organized, it could be tightened without losing information.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, when to use it, how to obtain the id, error handling with specific statuses, and read-only behavior. It lacks a detailed description of the response fields, but since there is no output schema, this would be valuable. The contradictory company_id default claim also slightly detracts from completeness, but overall it is fairly comprehensive for a simple read 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?

The schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context for `id` (use from List endpoint, must reference existing record), but it also makes a contradictory claim: 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' which conflicts with the schema marking company_id as required. This inaccuracy misleads the agent about whether company_id can be omitted, actively harming correct invocation.

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 purpose: 'Returns a single Unit of Measure (UOM) by ID.' It specifies the resource (Unit of Measure), the operation (show/return by ID), and distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete siblings by emphasizing 'single' and 'by ID.' Additional context about returning the 'full field set' further clarifies its specific role.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which unit you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to obtain the `id` from the List endpoint and to resolve it with the matching list tool, giving a clear prerequisite and workflow. This effectively differentiates it from list and other sibling tools.

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