Export Forms With Bids

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly confirms 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', details vendor resolution from project directory and PCN Business Registry, describes the return payload (JSON with file or download URL), and enumerates common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This is rich, non-redundant information.

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 well-organized, leading with purpose, then use cases, parameters, return value, and error scenarios. Each sentence contributes useful guidance; the only mild redundancy is the explicit 'Read-only' clause already covered by annotations. Still, it's efficient for the amount 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, the description properly explains the return format (JSON object with generated file or download URL). It covers failure modes, parameter defaults, prerequisites, and API endpoint details. For a tool with 4 params and no output schema, this is exceptionally complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics beyond the schema by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and that bid_package_id must be an existing parent record to be resolved via a list tool. It also restates the required parameters, reinforcing their necessity.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Download a summary of all Bid Forms and their Bids in the Bid Package.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list/view tools by scoping to the entire bid package and the export action. The phrase 'full field set' further clarifies its specific output intent.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which forms with bid you want and need its full field set.' It also gives a prerequisite step ('resolve it with the matching list tool first') and explains the project_id default from procore_set_config. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the guidance is actionable.

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