Check PDF Generation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which inform the agent that this is a safe, non-destructive, idempotent read operation. The description adds that the tool 'returns a JSON object with the file contents or download URL,' which is the key behavioral outcome. No contradictions exist, but the description does not elaborate on other behaviors (e.g., rate limits, error handling) beyond what the annotations implicitly cover. The added context about zone support is useful but not about behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise, consisting of four sentences that cover purpose, usage guidance, zone limitation, required parameters, and return type. There is no redundant or unnecessary information. Each sentence serves a clear purpose, and the structure front-loads the most critical information (the action and resource).

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return type ('JSON object with the file contents or download URL'). It also lists required parameters and the API endpoint. However, it does not clarify how the pagination parameters (page, per_page) interact with the returned data—since the tool returns a single file or URL, pagination may be irrelevant or apply to multiple PDF files? This minor ambiguity prevents a perfect score. Overall, the description is largely complete for a straightforward read operation with well-documented annotations.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, meaning each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema; it only reiterates that company_id, project_id, and prime_change_order_id are required. The pagination parameters (page, per_page) are not mentioned in the description, but since schema covers them adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Check the status of a PDF document generation for a prime contract change order.' It specifies the verb 'check status' and the resource 'PDF document generation for prime contract change order.' The note about Procore Zones US01 & US02 differentiates it from sibling versioned tools. The description also mentions the endpoint and that it returns a JSON object with file contents or download URL, leaving no ambiguity.

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 says 'Use this to retrieve a downloadable file or export URL for Prime Contracts,' providing a clear usage context. It also notes the zone limitation ('currently only supported in Procore Zones US01 && US02'), which helps the agent avoid using the tool in unsupported zones. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools (e.g., other versioned 'check_pdf_generation_status' siblings), which would be ideal.

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