Get All Properties For Adjustments

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

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' documents default behavior for company_id/project_id, and lists common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). However, the contradictory return-type description ('list' vs 'single JSON object') undermines transparency about the response behavior.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it contains redundant and contradictory statements (list vs. single object, use case mismatch). It also repeats information already in annotations (read-only) and includes endpoint details that, while informative, could be shortened. The structure is acceptable but not tight.

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 must clearly explain the return value, but it contradicts itself ('list' vs. 'single JSON object'). It also omits pagination or response structure details. Although it provides error statuses and defaults, the core confusion about the return shape leaves the agent insufficiently informed.

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 of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted. However, it does not clarify the schema's problematic view enum description (which mentions 'extended' but only allows 'Normal' and 'Keys'), so the added value is marginal.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the list of custom/dynamic properties defined for adjustment documents.' However, it then contradicts itself by saying 'Returns a single JSON object describing the property' and suggests use when you already know a specific property. This internal inconsistency makes the actual scope (list vs. single) unclear, so it cannot earn a higher score.

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 includes a usage hint ('Use this when you already know which property you want and need its full field set'), but this guidance conflicts with the tool name and primary statement implying a list of all properties. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, and the provided guidance is misleading, so it fails to help the agent choose correctly.

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