View An Electronic Signature

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' explicitly reinforces safety. It also discloses error response patterns ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'), return type ('Returns a single JSON object'), and prerequisite ID resolution. This is rich, non-redundant information.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence encapsulates the core purpose. Subsequent sentences each add essential details: usage context, ID resolution, return type, read-only nature, error patterns, required params, API category, and endpoint. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 return type, error handling, API path, ID resolution, and read-only semantics, which is strong for a no-output-schema tool. However, it omits clarification about the company_id/project_id requirement. The schema notes 'either company_id or project_id is required' for both fields, but the description only lists electronic_signature_id as required, potentially misleading an agent about invocation. This is the only notable gap.

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 for the key parameter: 'electronic_signature_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This clarifies the ID's provenance and prerequisite beyond the schema's 'ID of the Electronic Signature to view.' It also explicitly states 'Required parameters: electronic_signature_id,' mirroring the schema but reinforcing it.

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: 'view an Electronic Signature' and adds that it returns the full field set. It distinguishes itself from list tools by noting 'Use this when you already know which electronic signature you want.' The sibling tools include create/withdraw variants, so this is clearly the read-only single-record view.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which electronic signature you want and need its full field set.' It also names an alternative: 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which tells the agent to use a list tool when the ID is unknown. This clearly separates this tool from list/create/withdraw siblings.

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