List Punch Item Type Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by specifying pagination, optional search, required parameters, and the return format (JSON array of filter values). There is no contradiction with 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 reasonably concise with three sentences front-loading the main purpose. It includes the endpoint and API version. However, there is some redundancy (e.g., 'Returns punch item types' and 'Returns a JSON array…'), and could be slightly tighter.

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 complexity with pagination and search, the description covers the essential usage and return format. It mentions pagination, required parameters, and the endpoint. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned filter values (e.g., whether they contain id and name), which would be helpful since there is no output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all 5 parameters. The description restates that company_id and project_id are required and mentions pagination and search, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions. For example, it does not clarify what the 'query' parameter searches beyond what is already 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 that the tool returns punch item types with pagination and optional search, and explains its use for enumerating Punch List records. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling 'list_punch_item_types', which may cause confusion. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'punch item types' are specific.

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 usage context: 'Use this to enumerate Punch List records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, such as using 'list_punch_item_types' for a simpler list without filter options.

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