List Recycled Property Damages

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces these with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' Beyond annotations, it discloses error payload behavior (401/403/404), pagination response details, and project_id defaulting behavior, adding substantial transparency.

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 fairly long but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: scope, restore capability, use cases, defaults, response format, error handling, and endpoint. The endpoint line is slightly redundant but not wasteful. Overall, it is structured and informative without 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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers a lot: return type (JSON array), pagination behavior (page/per_page, remaining pages), error codes, project_id default, scoping to incident_id, and relationship to restore. It also includes the endpoint, making it well-rounded for an agent to use confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, and that page/per_page control pagination. It also aligns filtering/sorting with the main list. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Returns a paginated list of soft-deleted property damage records in the project's recycle bin.' It clearly distinguishes from the main property damages list by mentioning the recycle bin and soft-deleted records, and also notes optional scoping via incident_id.

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 use cases: 'Use this to discover recycled property damages or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also references the main property damages list for comparison, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool. It also mentions restore endpoint, giving context for follow-up actions.

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