List Submittal Responses

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses return format ('Returns a JSON array'), pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), read-only safety ('Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore'), and error details ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401, 403, 404'). This is rich behavioral context that goes well beyond the 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 well-organized and front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides usage, defaults, return format, safety, errors, and endpoint details. While a bit long, every sentence adds value. It is not overly verbose or repetitive, but it could have been slightly more concise by consolidating the parameter default and required statement.

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 simple list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use, parameter behavior (including default from config), pagination, return type, read-only nature, error semantics, required parameters, and the underlying API endpoint. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic detail by noting that 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' which is not in the schema. However, this creates a slight contradiction because the schema marks project_id as required and the description also says 'Required parameters: project_id.' This ambiguity prevents a 5.

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 clearly states the specific action and resource: 'List Submittal Responses for the specified Project.' It distinguishes this project-scoped tool from siblings by explicitly mentioning the project context and the project_id parameter. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use: 'Use this to discover submittal responses or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also explains the default behavior for project_id from procore_set_config and pagination usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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