List Specification Section Divisions

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.' It also adds error payload details (401/403/404) and config defaults, going beyond annotations. The description doesn't contradict annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then covers usage, defaults, read-only, errors, required params, and API endpoint in about 100 words. It is largely efficient, though the 'Returns a single JSON object' sentence is redundant with 'paginated list' and creates ambiguity.

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 read-only list tool with extensive schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the important context: purpose, default behavior, required params, read-only safety, error handling, and endpoint. It lacks differentiation from the similar sibling list tool and gives only a vague return description, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra value: it highlights required company_id/project_id and their config defaults, but doesn't explain each parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it returns a paginated list of Specification Section Divisions for a Project, giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. However, it later says 'Returns a single JSON object describing the specification section division,' which conflicts with the paginated list statement and muddles the 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?

Gives some context: use when you already know which division you want and need its full field set, and mentions config defaults for company_id/project_id. But it doesn't specify when not to use it or distinguish from the similar sibling tool 'list_specification_section_divisions_for_a_project,' and the given 'when' guidance is more appropriate for a show endpoint.

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