List Direct Cost Items

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds valuable behavior: project_id defaults to procore_set_config value, pagination behavior with page/per_page and remaining pages, return format as a JSON array, explicit 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' and detailed error payload patterns (401/403/404). This goes well beyond what annotations 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 structured logically: purpose, use case, link to filtering, defaults, return format, read-only note, error handling, required params, and API reference. Every sentence provides useful information, and it is not padded or redundant.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return type (JSON array), pagination reporting, error behavior, and endpoint context. This gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool and understand the response shape and failure modes.

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. The description adds meaning by explaining project_id's default behavior (from procore_set_config) and clarifying that page and per_page control pagination, which complements the schema descriptions. This extra context justifies a 4.

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: 'Returns a list of all Direct Cost Items for a Project.' It further clarifies the tool's use for discovering items or looking up an ID before calling other tools, which distinguishes it from sibling CRUD operations like show_direct_cost_item or create_direct_cost_item.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this to discover direct cost items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also links to filtering documentation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative list vs. show tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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