List Project Vendors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' Beyond that, it adds valuable behavioral context: pagination behavior, defaulting of project_id from procore_set_config, and common HTTP error statuses (401/403/404). This exceeds the annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds useful information: use case, default parameter behavior, return format, pagination, safety, error handling, and endpoint reference. No redundant or wasted content.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential operational aspects: required parameter, default behavior, pagination, response type, error semantics, and API endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that project_id can default to procore_set_config's value when omitted, and that page/per_page control pagination while the response indicates pages remaining. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which only state types and defaults.

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 Vendors associated with a specified Project.' It clearly scopes the tool to project-level vendors, distinguishing it from company-level vendor tools like list_company_vendors. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover project vendors or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It provides clear use context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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