Get Affected Body Parts

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

Discloses read-only behavior explicitly ('Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore'), which complements the annotations. It adds valuable context on failures (401, 403, 404) and pagination behavior (page/per_page, remaining pages), going well beyond what annotations 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 somewhat long but each sentence adds value: purpose, use case, defaults, return format, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly more concise could be done, but it earns its length.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It covers return format, pagination, error conditions, required parameters, default behavior, API endpoint, and read-only nature. This fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds key semantics: company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies pagination parameters, providing extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 affected body part options for injury record forms, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It also distinguishes its use case from siblings by positioning it as a lookup tool for getting IDs before calling tools that require them, which differentiates it from general body part lists.

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 guidance: 'Use this to discover affected body parts or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This tells the agent when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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