Get All Resource Requests For Projects In A Single Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is pageable and returns a JSON object, but does not elaborate on pagination limits, authentication needs, or performance considerations. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 two sentences plus API reference, making it concise. The inclusion of 'Procore API...' provides useful context but could be trimmed. Overall, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema, so the description should clarify the response structure; it only says 'returns a JSON object describing the requested Resource Planning records', which is vague. It does not explain the content of records or pagination behavior in detail. Minimal completeness for a simple read 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all four parameters. The description only reiterates required parameters company_id and group_id without adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves all Resource Requests for projects in a group, differentiating from siblings like 'get_all_resource_requests_for_a_single_project'. However, it confusingly mentions 'fetch the full details of a specific Resource Planning records by its identifier', which contradicts the 'all' scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for a single project or entire company). The phrase 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Resource Planning records' is misleading and does not clarify appropriate usage.

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