Export Company-Level Email Communication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds substantial context beyond annotations: failure modes (401/403/404), the company_id default behavior, the return payload structure (file or download URL), and the prerequisite that id must reference an existing parent record. This exceeds what the structured fields 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and organized into clear segments covering usage, parameters, return, safety, errors, and API reference. While every sentence contributes some value, the final 'Procore API' and endpoint lines are somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be trimmed, so it's not maximally concise.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it covers the operation, when to use it, prerequisite id resolution, return format ('a JSON object containing the generated file or a download URL'), error handling, and read-only behavior. For a tool of this complexity, there are no significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described at a basic level. The description adds meaningful nuances: company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and id must resolve to an existing parent record via the list tool. However, the 'when omitted' wording conflicts slightly with the schema marking company_id as required, preventing a perfect score.

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 opens with 'Export detailed information for company-level Email Communications for specified Id to PDF' — a specific verb (export), resource (company-level email communication), and output format (PDF). It also includes 'Use this when you already know which company-level email communication you want and need its full field set,' which distinguishes it from list/show siblings and project-level exports.

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 usage context: 'Use this when you already know which company-level email communication you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which implies the alternative for discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling list tool or state when not to use this export versus the show tool, so it's not a perfect 5.

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