List Project Trades

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds substantial context: pagination behavior, response shape, default project_id resolution, and typical HTTP error statuses (401/403/404). This is valuable operational detail not present in the structured 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 well-structured and every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, defaults, pagination, read-only reassurance, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint reference. It is appropriately sized with no 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to paginate, error behavior, parameter defaults, and the exact API endpoint. The agent can confidently select and invoke this tool based on the information provided.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and by describing how page/per_page control pagination. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific action ('Return a distinct list of trades in use on vendors for a given project'), clearly scoping to project-level trades and distinguishing from company-level list_trades. It also reinforces the purpose by noting it can be used to discover trades or look up an id before calling other tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use this to discover project trades or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it') and notes the default for project_id. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, 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.