List Incident Severity Levels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error response details ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401...403...404'), and company_id default behavior. This goes well beyond the 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 dense and front-loaded, containing a clear purpose statement followed by useful details. It has minor redundancy (e.g., 'Returns a paginated list' and later 'Returns a JSON array', 'Read-only' repeats the annotation), but overall every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it describes return contents (name, notification triggers, alert recipients, ranking), pagination, error handling, defaults, and API endpoint details. It also notes the read-only nature and common HTTP errors. This is sufficient for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics: company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, page and per_page control pagination, and filtering by trigger flags and sorting by name are supported. This adds meaning beyond the schema without duplicating it.

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 'Returns a paginated list of incident severity levels configured for the company', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes itself from sibling show/update tools by saying 'Use this to discover incident severity levels or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to discover incident severity levels or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It implies alternatives by referencing tools that need the id, though it does not name show/update tools or state when not to use it. The use case is clear.

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