Get Markups By Groups

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

The description says 'Retrieves markups' which implies a read-only operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction with the structured metadata, indicating the tool may mutate state. The added context about defaults and error codes cannot compensate for this inconsistency.

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 moderately concise but includes a vague and nearly tautological sentence ('Acts on the markup and returns Procore's response for the operation') and a redundant list of required parameters already present in the schema. The endpoint information is useful but could be tighter.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the response structure or pagination behavior, despite page and per_page parameters existing. The phrase 'returns Procore's response' is vague. While error codes and defaults are helpful, the absence of return value details makes it insufficient for a 7-parameter tool without an output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config when omitted, which is behavior not captured in the schema. It also lists required parameters, though that is somewhat redundant.

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 the tool retrieves markups by specific group IDs, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling markup tools like retrieve_a_list_of_markups or add_a_new_markup, so it misses the top score.

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 practical usage context: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, and it lists common HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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