List Hazards

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about pagination, response structure (paginated JSON array with metadata), and the ability to filter by query parameters. No contradiction 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use cases, pagination guidance, required parameter, and endpoint info. The last sentence about the Procore API category and endpoint is slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: pagination, filtering, required parameter, and endpoint. However, it omits details like default pagination limits (max 100) and exact response metadata structure, leaving some gaps.

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 parameters are well-described in the schema. The description mentions 'page and per_page to control pagination' and 'Required parameters: company_id,' but this does not significantly add beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return a list of all active Hazards associated with a Company,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes the tool's use for paginated overview, ID finding, and filtering, which differentiates it from sibling tools that may not offer pagination or such filters.

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 use cases: 'to enumerate Incidents when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also notes the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for different needs.

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