Get Company-Level Layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new information but reinforces it. The description does add useful behavioral context: company_id defaults to procore_set_config's value, and failures return an error payload with HTTP status (401/403/404). However, the contradictory return description ('all accessible layers' vs 'a single JSON object') obscures the actual response shape, which is a significant behavioral detail.

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 primary function but is somewhat cluttered by multiple disjointed phrases (usage, default, read-only, error handling, API reference). The contradictory 'single JSON object' sentence detracts from clarity. It is not excessively long, but it could be more tightly organized and free of contradictory statements.

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 several important aspects: pagination/filtering, default company_id, read-only nature, common error codes, required parameter, and the endpoint path. However, given the lack of an output schema and the complexity of 9 parameters, the failure to clearly state the response shape (list vs. individual object) is a notable gap. It also does not elaborate on the meaning or usage of the filter parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that company_id defaults to procore_set_config's value when omitted, and mentions pagination/filtering generically. It does not elaborate on filter parameters or page/per_page semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states 'Returns all accessible company-level layers with pagination and filtering,' giving a clear verb+resource. However, it also says 'Returns a single JSON object describing the company-level layer,' creating ambiguity about whether this is a list or single-resource endpoint. The phrase 'Use this when you already know which company-level layer you want' further muddles the intended use case versus simply listing layers.

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 offers only one vague usage cue ('Use this when you already know which company-level layer you want and need its full field set'). It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_layers, get_layer_by_id, or get_layers_for_context, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance actually conflicts with the primary list behavior, making it misleading for an agent deciding between tools.

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