List Project Trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the output format ('Returns a paginated JSON array of Directory records' with pagination metadata) and the required project_id parameter. No contradictions with annotations; the description reinforces the read-only nature.

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 paragraph of five sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information. While slightly more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) could improve, it is concise and free of fluff.

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 simplicity, schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains the output, pagination, and even provides the Procore API area and endpoint URL. There is no output schema to document, so the description suffices without missing critical context.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (project_id, page, per_page). The description adds meaning by explaining how to use pagination parameters and that the response includes pagination metadata. This goes beyond 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 clearly states the tool returns 'a distinct list of trades in use on vendors for a given project' and lists specific use cases: 'enumerate Directory records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' This verb+resource combination is precise and differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_trades' by focusing on trades in use on vendors within a directory context.

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 on when to use the tool: 'enumerate Directory records... to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also explains pagination control. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative sibling tools, which would elevate the score to 5.

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