Company Markup Indicators By Items

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

The description discloses that items the caller cannot view or whose classification cannot be resolved are silently omitted from data.items, and it explains common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also adds the defaulting behavior for company_id. These go beyond the annotations, which only provide generic hints.

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 information-dense but somewhat run-on, with the sentence 'Acts on the company markup indicator and returns Procore's response for the operation' adding little value beyond the first sentence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be tightened by removing redundant phrases.

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 purpose, omission behavior, error handling, default behavior, and the API endpoint. Since there is no output schema, it partially compensates by mentioning the response is Procore's response, though it does not detail the response structure or valid item_type values.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the defaulting behavior for company_id and lists required parameters, but does not significantly elaborate on item_ids or item_type beyond what the schema provides.

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 returns per-item markup indicators across a company, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('per-item markup indicators'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'project_markup_indicators_by_items' by explicitly scoping to the company level.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it operates on company-level markup indicators and mentions that company_id defaults to the configured value. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the company scope is unambiguous.

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