Get Paginated Receipt Line Items

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' reinforcing the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by describing failure modes: '401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve,' and explains the defaulting behavior of company_id/project_id from procore_set_config.

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 sized and front-loaded with the purpose, but contains a few confusing or redundant phrases such as 'Use this when you already know which paginated receipt line item you want' and 'Returns a single JSON object describing the paginated receipt line item' which clash with the paginated-list framing. Each section provides useful info, but the overall flow could be tighter and some sentences undermine clarity.

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 many essential aspects: purpose, scope, view types, read-only nature, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. However, it leaves important gaps for a 26-parameter paginated tool — it does not explain pagination mechanics (e.g., page/per_page semantics), sorting or filtering behavior, or the response structure beyond the vague 'single JSON object,' without an output schema to fill the void.

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 some semantics by noting that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, and it lists view types; however, the listed view types (Normal, Short, Mobile, Id) omit 'Compact' present in the schema enum, and the schema's view description mentions 'extended' which is not in the enum — introducing minor inconsistencies.

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 opens with 'Returns a paginated list of receipt line items across all receipts in the project' — a specific verb, resource, and scope that clearly defines the tool's functionality. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_paginated_receipt_line_items_for_a_receipt_with_specified_id by emphasizing the 'across all receipts' scope.

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 statement 'Use this when you already know which paginated receipt line item you want and need its full field set' is confusing — the tool returns a list, not a single item, so this guidance is potentially misleading. It does mention view types and company_id/project_id defaults, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and the given usage scenario does not align with the tool's listing behavior.

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