List Payments Subtier Waivers

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: the tool is read-only and 'changes nothing,' pagination behavior with 'page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain,' and common error payloads (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured hints.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, use case, defaults, pagination, safety, error handling, required params, and API mapping. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundant restatement of schema descriptions. No filler or tautology.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return type ('JSON array'), pagination controls, error handling, and required parameters. It also places the tool within a module (Construction Financials > Payments) and provides the exact endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further lookup.

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 meaningful context by explaining that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also explicitly lists required parameters, reinforcing the schema's required fields without contradicting them.

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 opens with a clear specific action: 'Returns list of payment subtier waivers,' naming the exact resource. It further differentiates from sibling tools by stating its use case: 'Use this to discover payments subtier waivers or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' The API endpoint and Procore module reference add precision.

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 context on when to use the tool: to discover waivers or fetch an ID before other calls. It does not name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over similar list operations. The note about project_id defaulting to procore_set_config also clarifies setup.

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