List Delivery Logs

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses the read-only nature, the default behavior when no date parameters are provided, pagination with page/per_page and page-count reporting, and detailed error payload descriptions (401, 403, 404). This is far more than what annotations already 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 dense but every sentence provides value: purpose, date defaults, use case, project_id default, return format, pagination, read-only status, error handling, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler, despite being longer than many descriptions.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: return type, pagination, defaults, error behavior, API endpoint, and a documentation link for further filtering details. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret failures.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains project_id defaults to the config value, clarifies date parameters (log_date, start_date, end_date) and their filtering role, and specifies how page/per_page control pagination. This goes beyond the schema's property 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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'all approved Delivery Logs for the current date', and distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining it is for discovering logs or looking up an id before calling another tool. This specificity separates it from show_delivery_log, create_delivery_log, and other daily log 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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to discover delivery logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It also notes the project_id default from procore_set_config and the date filtering behavior, but does not explicitly name alternatives like show_delivery_log for single-record lookup, so it falls just short of 5.

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