List Companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it explicitly says 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', which reinforces but also goes beyond basic annotation. It also discloses that failures carry HTTP status payloads (401/403/404), which is useful error-handling context. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond page/per_page, but the schema covers those. Since annotations exist, the bar is lower, and the description adds value; a 4 is warranted.

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 a single block of six sentences but each adds distinct value: scope, header requirement, use case, return format, pagination, read-only guarantee, failure modes, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and never repeats the title or schema verbatim. This is efficient and well-structured for an agent.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, auth/header requirement, pagination, error behavior, and endpoint reference. The annotations cover safety profile. Ambiguities like filtering and field names are not needed for this tool's selection. This is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter is already described in the schema (page, per_page, include_free_companies). The description adds a small amount of semantic context by mentioning that page and per_page control pagination and that the response reports pages remaining. It also explains the purpose of include_free_companies implicitly by noting the default excludes free companies, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 it returns a list of Companies visible to the User, and explicitly notes the key differentiator: it does not require the Procore-Company-Id header. It also states its use case (discover companies, look up company id). This strongly distinguishes it from siblings like list_company_projects or list_company_vendors.

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 when to use it: use this to discover companies or look up the id before calling a tool that needs it. It also clearly notes when not to need it (no company header required), which is valuable context. While it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the guidance is explicit enough for an agent to decide.

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