List Requisition Compliance Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating it's a safe read operation. The description adds the prerequisite 'Procore Pay must be enabled', which is useful. However, it states 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Payments', conflicting with the tool's purpose (attachments). This misrepresentation is a significant issue, reducing 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 moderately sized but includes redundancy (mentions 'Payments' multiple times incorrectly) and repeats endpoint info. It front-loads the prerequisite, which is helpful, but the inaccurate 'Payments' references waste space.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should fully explain the return format. It mentions pagination metadata and a JSON array, but incorrectly says it returns 'Payments' instead of attachments. This incomplete and misleading description fails to properly compensate for the missing output schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description lists required parameters (company_id, project_id, invoice_id) and mentions page/per_page for pagination, adding context about URL path vs query parameters. However, it repeats schema info without providing deeper semantic meaning.

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 the verb 'Lists' and resource 'requisition compliance attachments', aligning with the title. However, it then incorrectly refers to 'enumerate Payments' and 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Payments', creating confusion about the actual resource. The prerequisite 'Procore Pay must be enabled' is mentioned but doesn't clarify the core purpose.

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 offers scenarios for use ('when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters') and mentions pagination controls. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or alternatives, and the reference to 'Payments' instead of attachments undermines clarity.

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