Get Person'S Assignment History Data

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

The description states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' confirming the annotation but adding emphasis. It discloses pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain') and error semantics with specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), which the annotations do not provide. This adds substantial context beyond the generic 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides supporting details like pagination, errors, and API reference. It is relatively long but each sentence serves a purpose, though there is some repetitive phrasing ('person s assignment history data' appears multiple times) and minor grammar issues. Overall it's organized and readable.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: purpose, when to use, prerequisites, pagination, read-only confirmation, error handling, and the exact API endpoint. It doesn't detail the response structure beyond 'JSON array', but the schema and annotations cover much of the rest. This is a nearly complete description for a read-only list endpoint.

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?

All 13 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds meaning for company_id by noting it defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and for person_id by instructing to resolve it with a list tool first. These details are not present in the schema descriptions, so the description compensates well.

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 clear statement of function: 'Fetches the assignment history for a specific Person, returning records of all assignments linked to them.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from project-level history tools by emphasizing 'specific Person.' The endpoint URL further reinforces the scoped purpose.

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 says 'Use this to discover person's assignment history data or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' providing a clear use case. It also instructs to resolve person_id with a matching list tool first, which is a helpful prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for current assignments, but the term 'history' implies when this tool is appropriate.

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