List Project Owner Types

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the response format (paginated JSON array), mentioning pagination metadata, and providing the API endpoint. No contradiction with 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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: it begins with purpose, then usage, pagination details, required parameters, and API context. Every sentence adds value, though minor fluff like 'Procore API: Company Admin > Company Settings' could be considered redundant.

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?

The description covers the response type (paginated JSON array) and mentions pagination metadata. It also provides the endpoint URL. While it does not detail the fields within each item, the name and context suggest 'Project Owner Types' are simple strings or IDs, and the output schema is absent. For a read-only listing tool with clear pagination, this is sufficiently complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly defining company_id, page, and per_page with defaults and constraints. The description adds only that page and per_page control pagination and that company_id is required, which adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a list of Project Owner Types, and further specifies its use for enumerating Company Settings with pagination, finding IDs, or filtering by query parameters. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_project_owner_type' or 'create_project_owner_type'.

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 usage context: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also advises on pagination control via page and per_page. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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