List Punch Item Closed By Contact Filter Options

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds transparency about pagination and optional search, which are not covered by annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 concise with three sentences plus API metadata, but there is slight redundancy between 'returns users...' and 'returns a JSON array...'. Overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and is a filter options endpoint, the description covers pagination, search, and required params. However, it lacks explanation of the output format's purpose (e.g., how to use the returned values in other endpoints) or details about the query parameter. Adequate but not fully 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 the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. It only restates required parameters, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 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 it returns users who have closed punch items with pagination and search, and it provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling filter option tools like list_punch_item_assignee_filter_options, so it could be clearer about what makes this filter distinct.

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 says to use it for enumerated overviews, finding IDs, or filtering, but it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lists required parameters but lacks exclusion criteria compared to other tools.

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