List Equipment Maintenance Logs (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavior details: pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error payload structure with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and a clear 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' statement. It also discloses the deprecation and removal schedule. No contradictions with annotations.

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 comprehensive yet well-organized. It front-loads the purpose and deprecation, then covers usage, parameters, response format, error behavior, and API reference. Every sentence contributes essential information (e.g., removal date, default company_id, error codes) without redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return type (JSON array) and pagination behavior. It also includes the full endpoint path, API category (Project Management > Field Productivity), required parameter, default behavior, error modes, and deprecation timeline. This is complete for a list/discovery tool and covers all practical usage scenarios.

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 meaningful context for company_id by stating it 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted', which is not in the schema. It also reiterates pagination control but adds no new detail for page/per_page beyond what the schema provides. Thus it slightly exceeds the baseline.

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 Equipment Maintenance Logs.' It clearly distinguishes this company-level endpoint from project-level siblings by specifying the company scope and providing the exact API endpoint (GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment_maintenance_logs). The deprecation notice further clarifies its role as legacy.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover equipment maintenance logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also provides clear alternatives by noting the deprecation and directing users to 'prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' This is explicit when/why/alternatives guidance.

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