List Project Equipment Logs (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the deprecation schedule (specific dates), pagination behavior (page/per_page and remaining pages indicator), defaulting of project_id from config, and common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' reinforcing the annotation 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?

The description is longer than typical but every sentence provides relevant information: purpose, deprecation alert, usage intent, default parameter behavior, return type, pagination, read-only guarantee, error handling, required parameters, API category, and endpoint. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Read-only' repeats the annotation, 'Required parameters' repeats schema), but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (JSON array of equipment logs) and how results are paginated (page/per_page, remaining pages). It also covers error scenarios and defaults, making it complete enough for an agent to use correctly. The lack of detailed field names in the returned array is a minor gap, but the tool is a simple list endpoint and the deprecation guidance directs further discovery.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptive names (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and that page and per_page control pagination with the response reporting pages remaining. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and role descriptions, aiding correct invocation.

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 the tool's function: 'Return a list of all equipment logs for a specified project.' It uses a specific verb (return/list), identifies the resource (project equipment logs), and specifies the scope (per project), distinguishing it from company-level or maintenance-log siblings. The additional endpoint and category context reinforce its 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: it flags the endpoint as deprecated, instructs the agent to prefer a newer version and use procore_search_endpoints to find it, and states when to use this tool ('to discover project equipment logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'). It also clarifies the default behavior of project_id when omitted, giving clear contextual usage.

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