Show Witness Statement

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable error semantics: failures return HTTP statuses, with common 401/403/404 causes explained. It also notes the return format ('single JSON object'). This goes well beyond the structured annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 primary purpose and use case, then continues with essential parameter behavior, error handling, and API location. Each sentence adds value; the only slight redundancy is 'Required parameters: project_id, id' which is already in the schema, but it is a minor inclusion in an otherwise efficient structure.

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 read-only show tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, when to use, parameter defaults and prerequisites, return type, read-only nature, common error scenarios, endpoint, and API area. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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 beyond the schema: project_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and id 'must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also gives the endpoint template with parameter positions, which helps invoke the tool correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the specified Witness Statement.' It further clarifies the intended use case ('when you already know which witness statement you want and need its full field set'), which distinguishes this show tool from the sibling list tool. The endpoint and API section reinforce the precise scope.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which witness statement you want.' It also provides a prerequisite workflow: 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' and explains the project_id default behavior. This gives clear context without needing to infer alternatives.

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