List Contract Compliance Documents

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

The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it states the Procore Pay prerequisite, explains that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config, and details common failure modes (401, 403, 404). It also confirms the read-only nature, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation. These additions enhance transparency.

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 verbose and contains contradictory statements (e.g., 'Lists the contract compliance documents' vs. 'Returns a single JSON object'). It also restates required parameters already present in the schema. The structure is not front-loaded; critical information like the return type is muddled, and the description would benefit from being more concise and coherent.

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 must clarify the return value, but it ambiguously says 'a single JSON object' despite being a list endpoint. It does not explain that the endpoint returns a collection of documents or how pagination via page/per_page works. This incomplete and contradictory information makes it difficult for an agent to know what to expect from the call.

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 describes all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds practical guidance beyond the schema: company_id and project_id can be omitted to use defaults from procore_set_config, and contract_id must identify an existing parent record, resolved via a list tool. This helps the agent understand how to supply the parameters correctly.

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 'Lists the contract compliance documents,' which matches the tool name, but then says 'Use this when you already know which contract compliance document you want and need its full field set' and 'Returns a single JSON object describing the contract compliance document.' This contradicts the list semantics, making it unclear whether the tool returns a collection or a single item. The ambiguity is misleading for an agent deciding how to use this tool.

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 suggests using this tool when you already know which specific document you want, which is typically the use case for a show/get tool, not a list tool. It does not mention alternatives like get_contract_compliance_document, nor does it clarify when to use list versus get. The reference to resolving contract_id with 'the matching list tool first' is vague and does not provide clear exclusions.

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