List Company Insurances

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds rich behavioral context: pagination controls and remaining pages, default behavior for company_id, JSON array return format, and specific error statuses (401, 403, 404). This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and failure modes.

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 information-dense and logically structured, covering purpose, usage, defaults, return/pagination, read-only status, errors, required params, and API endpoint. No wasted sentences, though a few redundancies with annotations and schema exist (e.g., 'Read-only' and 'Required parameters').

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 is thorough: it explains purpose, usage, parameter behavior, return format, pagination, error handling, and even the underlying API endpoint. This makes it fully self-contained for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by noting company_id defaults to procore_set_config and that page/per_page control pagination with remaining-page reporting, providing context beyond the bare schema 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 clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'Return a list of all Insurances associated with the specified Company.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'company insurances' and positioning it for discovery or id lookup, setting it apart from project-level insurance tools and mutation tools.

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 says when to use it: 'Use this to discover company insurances or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also provides contextual detail about company_id defaulting to procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_project_insurances, so it lacks formal exclusions.

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