List Default Distribution Members

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It also discloses pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error handling ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status'), and common failure codes (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, pagination, read-only nature, error reporting, and API location. It includes deprecation info upfront and is front-loaded with the main purpose. No fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a read-only list tool with complete parameter schema (100% coverage), good annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and a thorough description covering purpose, pagination, errors, and API endpoint. Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (JSON array, pages remaining). No significant gaps remain.

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 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context that project_id is required and mentions page/per_page for pagination. It also mentions vendor_id implicitly by referencing 'collection of Users' but doesn't add specific semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful use-case context for the parameters (page/per_page pagination, project_id as required), so a 4 is warranted.

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 identifies the verb+resource: 'Returns a collection of Users that are on the Inspections Default Distribution list.' It also distinguishes this from similar list tools by specifying the Inspections context and the default distribution list specifically. It further clarifies the purpose by mentioning discovery of members and looking up IDs for other 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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to discover default distribution members or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_punch_item_default_distribution_list' or 'list_observation_default_distribution_members'.

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