List Project Country Codes

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

Annotations already claim readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond this by adding concrete error semantics (401/403/404), pagination behavior ('response reports how many pages remain'), and return type ('JSON array of project country codes'). This is valuable context that the annotations do not provide.

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 but well-organized: purpose, use case, default behavior, return format/pagination, read-only note, error cases, required parameters, and API reference. Each sentence adds information, though the 'Required parameters' and 'Read-only' statements slightly duplicate the schema and annotations. Still, it is front-loaded and not excessively long.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the resource being listed, the input parameters and their defaults, pagination controls, the response shape, behavior on failures, and the underlying API endpoint. An agent would have everything needed to call this tool 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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already documented. The description adds meaning by stating the default behavior of project_id when omitted (uses value from procore_set_config), which is not evident from the schema alone. This extra semantic helps the agent invoke the tool correctly without requiring prior config knowledge.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return a distinct list of country codes for a project.' It further clarifies the intended use case ('discover project country codes or look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), which distinguishes it from sibling filter-option tools and gives the agent a clear reason to select 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?

The description provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('before calling a tool that needs it') and notes that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config. It does not name specific alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough to choose appropriately among the many sibling tools.

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