Get Issuing Line Items

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the description's main credit is adding pagination limits linked to view type, defaulting of company_id/project_id from config, and concrete error status codes (401/403/404). However, the claim of returning 'a single JSON object' is a behavioral inaccuracy, preventing a perfect score.

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 a dense paragraph that mixes pagination, usage, defaults, error handling, and API endpoint details. It includes redundant information (e.g., 'Required parameters') and a contradictory return-type statement. It could be better structured and more concise.

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 pagination, default parameters, and error semantics, but the return type is ambiguous ('single JSON object' vs paginated list), and there's no output schema to compensate. It also omits guidance on filter parameters, though the schema covers them. It's adequate but not fully reliable.

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 already documents all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the view parameter controls pagination size (Id view allows 5000 records, otherwise max 100), and that company_id/project_id default from procore_set_config — details not captured 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 title and name suggest a list operation, and the description mentions pagination and view types affecting record counts, but then claims 'Returns a single JSON object describing the issuing line item.' This internal contradiction muddies the actual purpose. The usage statement ('when you already know which issuing line item you want') is inconsistent with the lack of an ID parameter, further reducing clarity.

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 only a misleading usage note ('Use this when you already know which issuing line item you want') and default value behavior, but no comparison with alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. The statement is inaccurate for a list endpoint, making the guideline actively confusing rather than helpful.

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