Return Company Schedule Summary

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about pagination, date range overlap logic, and required parameters. It does not contradict annotations, providing additional value beyond the structured fields.

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 redundant and inconsistent: it first describes returning task/calendar summaries, then later says 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Company Settings.' It also includes endpoint details that are not necessary. The mixed messaging reduces conciseness.

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?

Despite 17 parameters and no output schema, the description omits explanation of filter parameters (e.g., project_ids) and does not describe the response structure beyond pagination metadata. The conflicting statements about 'Company Settings' further confuse the tool's purpose.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage across 17 parameters. The description only mentions required parameters and pagination controls, adding minimal meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a list of task and calendar item counts per project per day for a date range, with overlap inclusion. It also mentions pagination and required parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_schedules or get_schedule_by_id.

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 a misleading usage guideline: 'Use this to read information about Company Settings from Procore.' This is contradictory because the tool actually returns schedule summary data. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and alternatives are not mentioned.

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