Get Next Available Number

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

The description supplements the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) by stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and detailing failure modes ('error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). It also discloses the defaulting behavior of project_id and the return format, adding value beyond the annotation hints.

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 compact and well-structured, beginning with the core action, then layering sibling differentiation, usage guidance, default behavior, read-only confirmation, error patterns, and API context. Every sentence contributes relevant information, though the length is slightly higher than minimal due to the comprehensive detail packed in.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, defaults, error behavior, and return shape. It even includes the Procore API path and version. The only minor gap is the lack of specific fields in the returned JSON object, but this is minor for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 schema already fully covers the single parameter project_id, but the description adds important meaning by stating it 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted.' This is not present in the schema and informs the agent that the parameter can be omitted in certain contexts, exceeding the baseline expected from high schema coverage.

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 the next available number and explicitly differentiates it from the spec-section variant by naming 'Get Next Available Number By Spec Section' and explaining when to use which. It also describes the return type (single JSON object) and pinpointing the endpoint, making the purpose 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 explicit selection guidance: 'See Get Next Available Number By Spec Section if number submittals by spec section is enabled' and 'Use this when you already know which next available number you want and need its full field set.' It also notes the project_id default behavior and required parameters, giving clear context for when to invoke this tool and when to choose an alternative.

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