List Visitor Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, and the description adds valuable context: default date behavior, pagination controls, error payloads (401/403/404), and project_id defaulting from procore_set_config. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 detailed but efficiently organized: opening statement, scoped date behavior, use-case guidance, return/pagination info, error handling, and API endpoint reference. It is somewhat packed but each sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably covers return type ('JSON array') and pagination, plus key error scenarios. It references external docs for detailed filtering, and the schema covers parameter definitions. A minor gap is not describing the exact fields in each visitor log entry, but overall it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds significant value by noting that project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, and it summarizes the date parameters' effect. This elevates it above the baseline 3.

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 tool 'Returns all Visitor Logs for the current date,' specifying the verb, resource, and default date scope. It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., create_visitor_log, show_visitor_logs) by noting its use 'to discover visitor logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.'

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 a clear use case: 'Use this to discover visitor logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also explains date filtering behavior and API context, though it does not explicitly mention when to use show_visitor_logs instead or list exclusions.

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