List Bid Uploads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' More importantly, it adds unique behavioral details: error payloads with HTTP status codes (401/403/404), pagination behavior with remaining pages reporting, and return format. No contradiction with 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 multi-sentence but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, parameter prerequisites, pagination, error behavior, and API endpoint. Information is front-loaded with the core verb-resource statement first, and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by stating the return type (JSON array), pagination controls and remaining-pages reporting, error payload structure, and parameter hierarchy (company_id default, bid_id parent resolution). It also provides the endpoint for traceability.

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 schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about bid_id needing to resolve to an existing parent record and the default behavior of company_id when omitted. However, the 'defaults when omitted' claim contradicts the schema marking company_id as required, which slightly diminishes the added value.

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 'Fetches a list of Bid Uploads for a Bid,' a specific verb+resource pairing. It further clarifies usage ('discover bid uploads or to look up the id of one'), which distinguishes it from related list tools like list_bids_within_a_company.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to discover bid uploads or to look up the id...') and provides a prerequisite ('bid_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'). This gives clear context and a directive for correct usage.

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