List All Equipment Makes (Deprecated)

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' describes pagination behavior ('response reports how many pages remain'), and lists common failure modes with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and helps the agent anticipate errors.

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 long but every sentence serves a purpose: deprecation notice, usage guidance, pagination details, read-only reassurance, error scenarios, required params, and API context. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no redundant filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (list operation, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers return type (JSON array), pagination, deprecation, error handling, default behavior, required parameter, and API endpoint. This is more than sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id defaults to the configured company, that page/per_page control pagination, and that the response reports remaining pages. It also notes 'Required parameters: company_id.' This supplementary context slightly elevates the parameter guidance beyond the schema 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 function: 'Return a list of all equipment makes.' It differentiates from siblings by specifying the resource (equipment makes) and notes its deprecated status with a pointer to alternatives. The verb is specific and the scope is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' It also explains use cases ('discover equipment makes or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), pagination defaults, and the company_id default from config, giving the agent clear direction on when and how to invoke it.

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