List Action Plan Receivers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context: it explicitly says 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore, describes pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), and details error responses (401/403/404). This goes well beyond the 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 packed with useful information in a structured way: purpose, use case, parameter defaults, return format, read-only nature, error handling, required parameters, API reference. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the return format (JSON array, pagination, pages remaining), error behavior, read-only nature, parameter defaults, and API metadata. It provides a complete operational picture for this list 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and that page/per_page control pagination and the response reports pages remaining. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter 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 'Returns all Action Plan Receivers for a given Project' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'for a given Project' (vs. template receivers) and explains its role as a discovery/lookup tool.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to discover action plan receivers or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, just the positive use case.

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