Get Company Assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false. The description adds value by explaining the read-only nature ('changes nothing in Procore'), defaulting of company_id, pagination behavior (page, per_page, 'reports how many pages remain'), and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This exceeds 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 concise and efficiently structured. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides usage guidance, return format, safety, error handling, required parameters, and API context—all in a compact paragraph without redundancy.

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 read-only GET with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core return type (JSON array), pagination, error patterns, and default id behavior. It does not exhaustively document every filter parameter, but the schema already provides those details. It could enhance completeness by contrasting with sibling tools like get_person_assignments, but overall it is adequate.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explicitly listing required parameters (`company_id`, `dayRange`, `start_day`) and explaining the default behavior of `company_id` (uses procore_set_config) and pagination semantics (page/per_page control, response reports pages remaining).

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 all Resource Planning Assignment data for a given company, with specific verbs ('Returns') and resource scope. It also distinguishes its use case from tools that require an assignment id by noting it can be used to look up an id before calling such tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('discover company assignments' or 'look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the context implies it.

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