List Project Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds substantial context beyond this: the project_id default behavior, pagination mechanics (page/per_page and remaining pages), return format (JSON array), and explicit error payload statuses (401/403/404). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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 average but every sentence earns its place: core action, use case, default behavior, return type, pagination, read-only guarantee, error handling, required params, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and has no fluff, though the API endpoint line could be seen as optional for an MCP agent.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return format (JSON array), pagination, error behavior, and the project_id default, which are the most critical aspects for using this tool correctly. The schema handles individual filter parameters, and the description adds contextual glue that makes the tool self-contained.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for project_id (defaults to procore_set_config value), page/per_page (controls pagination), and explicitly notes that project_id is required. This goes beyond simple schema repetition and helps the agent construct valid calls.

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 list of Locations associated with a Project." It clearly distinguishes this list tool from siblings like show_project_location (single record) and list_locations (likely company-level) by scoping to project_id and stating its discovery/id-lookup use case.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: "Use this to discover project locations or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it." This tells the agent when to choose this tool, and mentions the project_id default from procore_set_config. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the positive use case is clear and sufficient for differentiation.

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