Get Project'S Assignment History Data

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds concrete behavioral details: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' reinforces safety, and it specifies error response patterns (401 token expired, 403 no permission, 404 bad id) and pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'). These are meaningful additions beyond annotations.

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 fairly long but every sentence contributes: purpose, use case, defaults, output, pagination, read-only nature, error handling, required params, and endpoint reference. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the primary purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

With 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: return type (JSON array), pagination details, defaults, required parameters, safety, error handling, and API location. The schema covers individual parameter semantics, so the description completes the missing context for a complex 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema descriptions. It also clarifies pagination semantics for page and per_page, adding value beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Fetches the assignment history for a specific Project, returning records of all assignments linked to it.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_persons_assignment_history_data by specifying 'Project' and also provides the endpoint.

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 states a clear use case: 'Use this to discover project s assignment history data or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also notes default behavior for company_id and project_id, which helps the agent understand invocation context. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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