Project Markup Indicators By Items

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: silent omission of items the caller cannot view or classify, defaulting of company_id/project_id to procore_set_config, and error payloads with common HTTP status codes. These add substantial context not present in 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-structured with purpose, behaviors, defaults, errors, and endpoint, but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Acts on the project markup indicator and returns Procore's response for the operation' adds little, and 'Required parameters' repeats schema). It is not as tight as it could be.

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 batch query with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, silent omissions, parameter defaults, error handling, and the endpoint. It falls short of describing the full response structure and valid item_type values, but gives an example indicator and mentions data.items.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not evident from the schema. Other parameters are adequately described in 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 clearly states the tool returns per-item markup indicators (e.g., has_public_markup) for a project in a single batch call. It specifies the resource (project markup indicators), the action (returns), and scope (for a project), distinguishing it from the company-level sibling tool.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to get per-item markup indicators for a project. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., company_markup_indicators_by_items) or any exclusions.

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