Get All Shipments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' sentence adds no new information. It does add useful failure-mode context (401/403/404) and defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, but it also misrepresents the return shape (saying 'single JSON object' for a paginated list), which undermines trust in the behavioral description.

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 overly long and redundant. It repeats information already present in annotations (read-only) and schema (required parameters), includes the API endpoint path that is unlikely to aid invocation, and contains contradictory sentences that waste words and confuse the reader.

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?

For a tool with 22 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify pagination and return format. It only says 'Returns a single JSON object,' which is likely incorrect for a paginated list and does not explain pagination metadata or response structure. While failure modes and defaults are covered, the missing and contradictory return-value information leaves the agent underinformed.

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 minor value beyond the schema by clarifying that company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values and that 'Normal' is the default view type, but it does not materially explain the many filter parameters already documented in the schema.

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 statement ('Returns a paginated list of shipments with filtering and sorting options'), but immediately contradicts it with 'Use this when you already know which shipment you want' and 'Returns a single JSON object describing the shipment,' which are semantics for a single-resource show endpoint. The internal inconsistency makes the tool's purpose confusing for an agent.

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 only explicit usage guidance ('Use this when you already know which shipment you want and need its full field set') is misleading for a list endpoint—you would typically use a show/detail endpoint for a known shipment. No alternatives are mentioned, and there is no when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent cannot correctly decide between this and sibling shipment tools.

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