Gets Documents Attached To Bid Package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by stating support for pagination and sorting for PDM attachments, and that the response includes pagination metadata. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits, default pagination sizes, or error handling.

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 a single paragraph but packs essential information: resource, meta-info, supported operations, required params, API endpoint, and pagination behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Slightly dense but not verbose. Could be improved by breaking into bullet points for readability.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description partially fills gaps by stating the return is a list of documents with meta information and a paginated JSON array with metadata. It does not detail the structure of each document record (e.g., what fields like document_revision_id mean). For a tool with many parameters, more detailed output description would be helpful.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the purpose of pagination parameters: 'Supports optional pagination and sorting for PDM attachments via query parameters' and explicitly mentions required parameters company_id and bid_package_id. This helps distinguish between general pagination (page, per_page) and PDM-specific pagination (pdm_page, etc.).

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 clearly states it returns a list of all documents attached to a bid package, including drawings and PDM attachments. The verb 'returns list' and resource 'documents attached to Bid Package' are specific. However, it later refers to 'Bid Management records', which creates slight ambiguity about whether the output is documents or records. This prevents a perfect score.

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 provides a usage directive: 'Use this to read information about Bid Management records from Procore.' It does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools. Required parameters are listed, but no context on when to prefer this over sibling tools like list_bids_within_a_bid_package or show_bid_package_project.

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