List Contributing Conditions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds rich behavioral details: pagination control and page-count reporting, default active filtering with all=true override, company_id fallback to config, read-only assurance, and specific error scenarios (401/403/404). These traits are not present in annotations, substantially helping the agent anticipate behavior.

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 densely informative yet every sentence serves a purpose: main function, default behavior, use case, config fallback, return format, safety guarantee, error handling, required params, and API context. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no 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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that already cover safety, the description is highly complete. It covers the operation's purpose, pagination, default filtering, return format, error payloads, required parameters, and even the Procore API endpoint. The agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without further speculation.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds practical semantics for key parameters: explaining the 'all' boolean's effect on active/inactive filtering, pagination parameters (page, per_page), and the company_id default behavior when omitted. This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions, though not exhaustively for every filter parameter.

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 'Returns a paginated list of contributing conditions for the specified company' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like show_contributing_condition by noting its use for discovery and ID lookup before calling other tools, and specifies the default active-only scope.

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 'Use this to discover contributing conditions or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like show_contributing_condition, but the use case is clear enough to guide selection.

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