Document Markup Permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', details error payload types and common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and explains parameter defaulting from configuration. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but efficient, covering purpose, usage, behavior, errors, and API endpoint without unnecessary fluff. It is somewhat long but each sentence provides relevant information, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

For a simple read-only permission lookup with a 100% documented schema and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states the return type, error behavior, defaulting, and API endpoint. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by noting it returns a single JSON object.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds a note about defaults, but this conflicts with the schema marking them as required. This ambiguity prevents a higher score, though it does add some context beyond the schema.

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 'Returns the user permissions for the document specified in Procore-Document-Id header' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds usage context ('when you already know which document markup permission you want and need its full field set') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list/retrieve markups.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which document markup permission you want and need its full field set.' It also explains default values for omitted parameters and error scenarios, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases.

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