List Property Damages

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds behavioral details: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.', default sort order, pagination behavior ('response reports how many pages remain'), and error handling (HTTP status codes for 401/403/404). These go beyond the annotations and provide valuable execution context.

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 distinct information: resource scope, field contents, sort order, filtering, usage scenario, defaults, return format, read-only status, error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully covers return values ('Returns a JSON array of property damages' and lists included fields), pagination, error handling, defaults, and even the API endpoint. This makes the tool's behavior predictable and complete for an agent.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful defaults and behavior: 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted', 'By default sorted by descending full_number', and explains how page/per_page control pagination. This adds value beyond the schema, but not overwhelmingly so, hence 4.

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 explicitly states 'Returns a paginated list of property damage records for the specified project, optionally scoped to a single incident via incident_id.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like show_property_damage and create_property_damage by noting it is for discovery and ID lookup.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to discover property damages or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also explains the optional incident_id scoping, default project_id from procore_set_config, and mentions filtering and pagination. This effectively guides when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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