List All Equipment Models

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions that the tool returns 'a paginated JSON array' with 'pagination metadata,' and provides the full API endpoint URL and categorization (Procore API: Project Management > Field Productivity). This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, pagination info, required parameter, and API reference. No filler or tautology.

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 read-only list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, pagination mechanism, required parameter, and API details. It does not explain the return format beyond 'JSON array' but that is sufficient. The annotations fill safety/behavior gaps. Score reflects minor omission: could mention typical default sorting or response fields.

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 has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra info: it reiterates that page and per_page control pagination, which is already implied by the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource combination: 'Return a list of all equipment models.' It specifies the action (list) and the resource (equipment models). It also provides context by linking to Field Productivity records, and the tool name itself is explicit. No ambiguity.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this to enumerate Field Productivity records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also clarifies the required parameter (company_id). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, it provides sufficient guidance for typical list operations.

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