List Filter Options For Submittal Unpackaged

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true) already convey the safe, read-only nature. The description adds that it returns a 'JSON array of available filter values' and includes the API endpoint. It does not contradict annotations and provides minor additional context beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes key usage guidance and a reference to the Procore API. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 (list filter options) and the presence of annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It notes the return type ('JSON array of available filter values') and the endpoint. However, it could briefly describe the structure of the filter values (e.g., keys present) to fully compensate for the lack of an output schema.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'Required parameters: project_id' but adds no new semantic meaning for page or per_page beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds minimal value over the existing schema.

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 function: 'Returns all Filter Options for Submittal Unpackaged defined for the project.' It specifies the resource (Submittal Unpackaged) and the action (list filter options), and contrasts with sibling filter option tools by naming the specific submittal context. The verb 'returns' and noun 'filter options' are precise.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to enumerate Submittals when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools for different purposes. It also lists required parameters.

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