List All Equipment Models (Deprecated)

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

Discloses read-only behavior ('it changes nothing in Procore'), pagination semantics ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), default config behavior for company_id, and error payload details (401/403/404). These go well beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint.

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 earns its place: deprecation details, default parameter behavior, return format, error patterns, and API location. It is structured and front-loaded with the core action, though slightly verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return type (JSON array), pagination, error scenarios, required parameters, and API endpoint. It also explains the deprecation timeline and how to find alternatives, making it exceptionally complete for a 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics: company_id defaults to procore_set_config value when omitted, and page/per_page control pagination with remaining page count reported. This goes beyond the schema's raw 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 opens with 'Return a list of all equipment models,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. It adds deprecation context and use cases, and distinguishes from alternatives by instructing to 'prefer a newer version' and 'use procore_search_endpoints to find it.'

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?

Explicit use case is provided: 'discover equipment models or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also states when not to use it by flagging deprecation and directing to newer versions. It does not name a specific sibling tool, but gives clear when/when-not guidance.

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