Get Company Naming Standard Rules

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds value by disclosing that the response always includes the Procore Default naming rule, that company_id defaults to procore_set_config, and that failures return HTTP status codes (401/403/404). These extras go well beyond 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 informative but slightly verbose, with some redundancy such as stating 'Returns' twice and repeating 'Required parameters: company_id' which is already in the schema. Still, each fact is useful and the structure is logical, covering purpose, usage, defaults, behavior, errors, and API reference.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers many important aspects: scope, ordering, inclusion of default rule, default parameter behavior, error handling, and API endpoint. However, there is a confusing tension between 'Returns all field rules... ordered by modified date' and 'Returns a single JSON object' — it's unclear whether the tool returns one aggregated object or a list. This ambiguity is not fully resolved, so the description could be more complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the behavioral detail that company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. This is useful, but it doesn't add much for the other parameters.

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 company naming standard field rules, including inactive ones, ordered by modified date, and explicitly notes it returns a single JSON object. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying company-level scope and the use case 'when you already know which company naming standard rule you want and need its full field set.' There's slight redundancy but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage context: 'Use this when you already know which company naming standard rule you want and need its full field set.' It also explains the company_id default behavior, giving context on how to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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