Get Permission Level Options

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' Beyond the annotations, it discloses meaningful behaviors: company_id falls back to the procore_set_config value, page/per_page drive pagination with pages-remaining reporting, and errors surface as HTTP-status payloads (401/403/404).

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 front-loaded with the purpose sentence and organized logically (usage, config behavior, return shape, errors, endpoint). It loses a point for small redundancies: the safety statement largely duplicates readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and 'Required parameters: company_id' restates the schema's required array.

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 having no output schema, the description explains the critical return semantic (the id is the UUID for permission_level_id), confirms the JSON array format, addresses pagination and remaining-page reporting, covers the config default, enumerates common error statuses, and even provides the exact REST endpoint. This is complete for a discovery/list 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the schema already documents page, per_page, and company_id (including the dual integer/UUID formats). The description adds one genuinely new behavior beyond the schema — company_id defaults to the configured procore_set_config value when omitted — which justifies a 4.

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 a specific verb/resource/scope statement ('Retrieves a list of all available permission level options within a company'). It further differentiates from siblings by framing the tool as a discovery/lookup aid (the id is used for permission_level_id in related calls), which sets it apart from the many permission-template/user-permission siblings.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool: 'Use this to discover permission level options or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It does not name alternative tools for exclusion (e.g., list_permission_templates), so it lacks the explicit when-not/alternatives that would earn a 5.

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