Check PDF Generation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main behavioral addition is the zone restriction. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Check the status') and does not contradict annotations. However, no further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response details) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide, so the description adds marginal transparency.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential details (zone restriction, return type, required params, API reference). No superfluous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent), and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, when it works (zones), required parameters, and the nature of the response ('JSON object with file contents or download URL'). No critical gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the required parameters (company_id, project_id, prime_contract_id) and provides endpoint path context, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, optional parameters page and per_page are not elaborated, and the description does not clarify their usage beyond what the schema says.

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 action ('Check the status of a PDF document generation') and the resource ('prime contract'), making the purpose obvious. It also notes it returns a JSON object with file contents or download URL. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like check_pdf_generation_status_project_v2_0, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 mentions a usage restriction ('only supported in Procore Zones US01 && US02') and advises to use this tool for retrieving downloadable files or export URLs for Prime Contracts. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, though the sibling list implies alternatives exist.

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