List Company Checklist Templates

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it is explicitly 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' it describes pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), and it details error semantics with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explains the default for company_id from procore_set_config, which is not in 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 appropriately sized for a tool with 10 parameters. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, defaults, pagination, read-only guarantee, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides actionable guidance, with no redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage scenario, parameter defaults, pagination, error handling, the required parameter, and API endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and that page and per_page control pagination with the response reporting remaining pages. This provides operational context not present in the individual parameter 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a collection of Company Checklist Templates for a specified Company.' It further clarifies the use case—'discover company checklist templates or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_checklist_templates or show_company_checklist_template.

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 the tool: 'Use this to discover company checklist templates or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., project-level templates), but the company-scoped language and the guidance to look up IDs provide clear contextual usage.

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