Show Work Order Contract

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by explicitly stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', describing the tier-based visibility rules for Change Order Packages/Potential Change Orders/Change Order Requests, and detailing error payload scenarios (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral context that complements the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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 well-structured with clear sections: statement of purpose, special tier notes, usage guidance, return format, read-only note, error handling, and API/endpoint reference. While it includes a lengthy tier explanation, this is necessary domain-specific detail. The text is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section adds value; it is slightly verbose but justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

This is a read-only fetch tool with no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior and return expectations. It covers what the tool returns (single JSON object), how visibility varies by tier count, error handling with specific HTTP statuses, required parameters, the Procore API category, and the HTTP endpoint. This is comprehensive and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing further 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% with both id and project_id having basic descriptions. The tool description adds meaning by explaining that 'id must identify an existing parent record' and mentioning '404 when an id does not resolve', giving the agent practical understanding of how to obtain and validate the id. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'URL path parameter' and 'Query string parameter' labels, providing useful semantic context.

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 'Return a Work Order Contract', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by saying 'Use this when you already know which work order contract you want and need its full field set', which differentiates it from list_work_order_contracts and other contract operations.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this when you already know which work order contract you want and need its full field set. id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and directs to the list tool for id resolution, covering when-to-use and prerequisite steps.

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