List Accident Logs

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds significant behavioral context: it is read-only ('it changes nothing in Procore'), describes error responses (401, 403, 404), explains pagination and 'how many pages remain,' and clarifies default behavior for date parameters and project_id. This is far more than annotations alone provide.

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 dense but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core behavior, then covers filtering, defaults, use case, return format, pagination, error behavior, required parameters, and API reference. No filler or redundancy; it balances completeness with efficiency.

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?

For a 9-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the returned type (JSON array), pagination behavior, error semantics, default project_id, date-filter defaults, and the API endpoint. The only minor gap is not detailing the accident log object structure, but the docs link and list-specific nature make this acceptable.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaningful semantics: date parameters default to the current date when omitted, start_date and end_date are used together, and project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 the tool's action and resource: 'Returns all Accident Logs for the current date.' It also provides a specific use case: 'Use this to discover accident logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This distinguishes it from other log-listing tools by name and behavior.

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool ('Use this to discover accident logs or to look up the id...') and notes the default project_id behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the use case is clear enough to guide an agent.

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