Show Weather Logs (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces read-only behavior. It adds useful behavioral context about deprecation and possible removal, and describes common error status codes (401, 403, 404) and that failures return an error payload. This goes beyond the 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?

The description is long but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then deprecation, usage guidance, defaults, error behavior, and API reference. Each sentence adds value, with no filler. The length is justified by the deprecated status and error handling details.

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?

No output schema, but description states it returns a single JSON object describing the weather log, which is sufficient. It covers required parameters, default behavior, error handling, and API endpoint. The optional log_date parameter is only in schema, but that's acceptable given full schema coverage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by noting project_id defaults to the configured value and that id must reference an existing parent record resolvable via list tool. It also explicitly lists required parameters though the schema already does.

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 'Returns single Weather Log' and provides context that this endpoint is deprecated, which distinguishes it from list and create tools. It also notes it's for when you already know the specific log and need full field set, differentiating from search tools. The plural tool name vs singular return is resolved by the description.

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 states 'Use this when you already know which weather log you want and need its full field set' and instructs to resolve id with the matching list tool first. It also directs users to prefer a newer version and use procore_search_endpoints to find it, providing clear alternatives. This is excellent guidance.

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