List Requisition Compliance Documents

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array and mentions pagination metadata, but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like ordering or error conditions. The return type is mislabeled as 'Payments', which is contradictory to the tool's purpose.

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 four sentences but jumbled and repetitive. It starts with the purpose, then a bold prerequisite, then switches to 'Payments' instead of 'documents'. The inclusion of endpoint path and required parameters at the end is useful but poorly integrated. Could be more concise and front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return structure. It incorrectly states 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Payments' when the tool lists compliance documents. It does not describe the fields in each item, pagination metadata structure, or error handling. This is highly incomplete and misleading.

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 schema already describes each parameter. The description adds that page and per_page control pagination and lists required parameters, which is helpful but not essential. No new semantics beyond the schema.

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 mentions 'Lists the requisition compliance documents' but then says 'enumerate Payments', creating confusion. The tool name and title clearly indicate compliance documents, but the description contradicts by referring to Payments. This misalignment reduces clarity.

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 use cases: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also mentions the prerequisite 'Procore Pay must be enabled'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get or update, and the 'Payments' wording is misleading.

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