List Project Insurances

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds rich behavioral disclosure: it states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', describes pagination with page/per_page and remaining pages, specifies the return format as a JSON array, and details error payload behavior with 401/403/404 statuses. It also clarifies the project_id default from procore_set_config. This goes well beyond what structured fields 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 a single, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then covers usage, parameters, return format, safety, error handling, and endpoint in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, pagination, error cases), the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, how pagination works, default behavior, read-only nature, likely error codes, and the API endpoint. Although no output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers return values and error semantics, so no critical information is missing.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that page/per_page control pagination with a response reporting pages remaining. This contextual detail about parameter defaults and pagination behavior exceeds the schema's bare definitions.

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 'Return a list of all Insurances associated with the specified Project', which clearly states the specific verb (return), resource (project insurances), and scope (associated with project). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is for discovery and id lookup before calling tools that need the id, differentiating it from create/update/delete/show operations.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'Use this to discover project insurances or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also notes the project_id default behavior, giving practical context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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