List Submittal Statuses

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds valuable context about error handling (401/403/404 statuses) and response pagination reporting. This goes beyond redundant restatement, though it could have detailed the exact response structure further.

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 longer than the ideal two-sentence summary, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, default behavior, response format, read-only note, error handling, required params, API location, and endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers the purpose, use case, default parameter, pagination behavior, return type, read-only semantics, error scenarios, and API endpoint. An agent has all necessary information to invoke it correctly without external documentation.

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 documents parameters. The description adds meaningful context: 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and that page/per_page control pagination with the response reporting remaining pages. This adds value beyond the individual parameter 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Return a list of all Submittal Statuses from a specified Company.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_submittals and list_filter_options_for_submittal_status by focusing on the statuses themselves and explicitly mentioning their use in looking up ids for other tools.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this to discover submittal statuses or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' Also clarifies that company_id defaults to procore_set_config, which is a key usage detail. This clearly tells the agent when and why to invoke this tool.

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