List Lien Waivers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable context beyond annotations: pagination behavior (page, per_page, remaining pages reporting), default project_id behavior via procore_set_config, return format (JSON array), and common failure modes with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This gives the agent a strong behavioral model 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?

Well-structured: opens with core listing capability, then use cases, then defaults, pagination, safety, errors, required params, and API reference. Every sentence adds value. Four clear information blocks. No 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, description covers: trigger/use case, required parameters, defaults, pagination behavior, read-only guarantee, error semantics, and API endpoint for verification. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool successfully.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to procore_set_config value, page/per_page control pagination, and invoice_id is required for retrieval. This supplements the schema's basic 'query string parameter' descriptions with practical usage context.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Lists' + resource 'lien waivers' + scope 'in the specified Procore project'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_payments_subtier_waivers by naming the exact resource and API endpoint. The use case of discovering lien waivers or looking up id before another tool call adds practical purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'to discover lien waivers or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'. Clearly states read-only nature with 'changes nothing in Procore'. Differentiates from alternatives by specifying the exact endpoint and API section. No misleading exclusions.

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