List Filter Options For Specification Division

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns a JSON array, supports pagination, and is part of the Procore Submittals API. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise, with three focused sentences. It uses front-loaded key information (what it returns and its purpose) and includes API context without unnecessary 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 the tool's simplicity and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, return type, and required parameter. However, the absence of an output schema means the description could elaborate on the structure of the returned JSON array (e.g., key fields) for full clarity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the description is not required to add parameter details. It mentions 'Required parameters: project_id' which is redundant. It does not elaborate on page/per_page beyond what the schema provides, so no added semantic value.

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 it returns all Filter Options for Specification Division, a specific resource. It also provides usage context: enumerating Submittals for paginated overview or filtering. The purpose is distinct from sibling filter option tools due to the explicit 'Specification Division' focus.

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 gives guidance on when to use the tool: to enumerate Submittals for paginated overview, find IDs, or filter by query parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to sibling tools like list_filter_options_for_specification_area, which share the same pattern.

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