List All Project Budgeted Production Quantity IDs

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that the response is a paginated JSON array with metadata, and it lists the endpoint. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context 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 two paragraphs with four sentences, front-loading purpose and usage. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, pagination, and required parameters. Some redundancy in the second paragraph but no wasted words.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose, usage, pagination, and required param. It also references the Procore API. However, it does not detail the response structure beyond 'paginated JSON array of Budget records', which could be more precise for a tool returning IDs with details.

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 each parameter has a description. The description mentions pagination parameters ('Use page and per_page') but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a list of Budgeted Production Quantity IDs with details for a specified project. It specifies the verb (list), resource (budgeted production quantity IDs), and scope (per project). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_all_project_budgeted_production_quantities' by focusing on IDs.

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 to use this tool for enumerating budget records with pagination, finding IDs, and filtering. It mentions required parameter 'project_id' and pagination controls. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives (e.g., the full record sibling tool).

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