List Correspondences

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

The description discloses the read-only nature explicitly and goes beyond the annotations by detailing the return format (JSON array), pagination behavior (page/per_page, pages remaining), and error payload semantics (401/403/404). This provides substantial behavioral context that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds useful context (prerequisites, return format, errors, endpoint). It is longer than strictly necessary, and the 'Required parameters' line redundantly restates the schema, but overall it is well-structured and dense with information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description wisely explains the return type and pagination behavior. It covers prerequisites, defaults, error conditions, and the API endpoint, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It does not enumerate the fields within each correspondence, but that is likely acceptable for a generic list tool.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by noting that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and that bid_package_id must identify an existing parent record (resolve with matching list tool). It also clarifies that page/per_page control pagination and that the response reports remaining pages. However, the description is internally inconsistent: it claims company_id defaults but also lists it as required, which introduces ambiguity.

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: 'Return a list of all Correspondences for a Bid Package.' It clearly identifies the scope (bid package) and the operation (listing). While it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_correspondences_project as alternatives, the company-level framing is evident from the company_id default and endpoint.

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 states 'Use this to discover correspondences or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' which provides a clear use case. It also instructs that bid_package_id must reference an existing parent record and should be resolved with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with list_correspondences_project or state when not to use it.

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