Download RFIs List

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it declares read-only behavior, explains the return value (JSON object with file or download URL), and details common error payloads with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This significantly exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 a moderately long paragraph but every sentence contributes useful information: purpose, usage context, default behavior, return type, read-only guarantee, error cases, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains efficient given the breadth of content.

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?

With no output schema present, the description adequately explains the return value (JSON file or download URL), error handling, and required parameters. It also references the specific endpoint, making it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect. For a download tool with nested object parameters, this is fully sufficient.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an important semantic detail: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also restates required parameters, though that is redundant.

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 it downloads a PDF or CSV of the RFIs List and gives a specific usage context ('when you already know which RFIs list you want and need its full field set'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_rfis or download_external_rfi_pdf_export, so it lacks full differentiation but is still unambiguous.

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 a clear when-to-use guideline ('when you already know which RFIs list you want') and notes the project_id default from procore_set_config. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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