Get All Properties For Defects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description reinforces it and adds helpful error-payload details (401/403/404) and identifier defaulting. But the return shape is internally contradictory (list vs single JSON object), which muddies behavioral expectations.

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 and includes many useful details in a compact form. The extra API version/endpoint line and redundant read-only mention are minor; the list/single contradiction is the main structural flaw.

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?

The description covers error conditions, authorization, and default parameter behavior, but the lack of an output schema means it should clarify the return structure; the contradictory list/single-object statements leave an agent unsure. No pagination or field-list details are given for a 'list' tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds defaulting behavior, but this conflicts with the schema's required marker for company_id/project_id and with its own 'Required parameters' line, making guidance misleading.

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 clear verb and resource ('Returns the list of custom property definitions available for defects') and distinguishes from sibling tools via the 'for defects' scope. However, it later says 'Returns a single JSON object describing the property,' conflicting with the initial 'list' statement, so precision is reduced.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which property you want and need its full field set.' It also provides defaulting context for company_id/project_id (procore_set_config), though it doesn't name alternatives or when-not conditions.

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