Get Receipt Properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the statement 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' reinforces rather than adds, but the description goes further by detailing error payload behavior (common HTTP statuses 401/403/404) and the return format as a single JSON object. This is valuable context 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 efficient and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds substantive value (view modes, defaults, return type, read-only, error handling, endpoint). Slightly dense but not bloated; a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by specifying a single JSON object return, error statuses, defaults, and the underlying API endpoint. The only minor gap is not clarifying whether multiple properties are returned or how to select one, but given the parameter set, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds deeper meaning by explaining that view=Keys returns only property keys while the default returns full metadata, and that company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted. This exceeds what the schema alone provides, justifying 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 and resource: 'Returns custom/dynamic properties defined for receipt documents.' It clearly differentiates the tool's purpose from siblings by noting the view=Keys option and that it returns full property metadata when you already know which receipt property you need. This is a clear, distinguishing statement.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this when you already know which receipt property you want and need its full field set,' which is a direct usage guideline. It also explains view=Keys for keys-only responses and mentions default behavior for omitted company_id/project_id. Lacks explicit alternative tool names, so not a perfect 5.

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