Punch List Available Final Approvers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds useful context about pagination ('Returns a paginated JSON array... Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata') and mentions the endpoint and API category. However, it does not disclose any further behavioral traits like authentication requirements or rate limits, which are not critical for a read-only list tool but would add transparency.

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 relatively concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('Use this to read information about Punch List records from Procore') is slightly redundant with the first and adds vague phrasing. The later sentences about pagination and the API endpoint are efficient. Overall, it could be tightened by removing the redundant sentence.

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?

The description does not detail the structure of the returned data. It says 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Punch List records,' but the actual return should be a list of available final approvers (likely persons/contacts). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the fields (e.g., id, name, company) or at least indicate that each record represents a potential final approver. Without this, an agent may not know what information is available in the response.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explicitly noting that project_id is required and explaining pagination parameters (page, per_page). However, it omits mention of the 'query' parameter, which is documented in the schema but not in the description. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description provides modest additional context.

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 states it 'Returns available final approvers for Punch List,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, the subsequent sentence 'Use this to read information about Punch List records from Procore' is broader and could mislead by implying it returns all punch list records rather than just the list of available final approvers. The name and endpoint clarify the resource, but the description introduces slight ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_punch_items or other punch list tools. The description only states the tool's purpose without exclusions or comparisons. The name provides implicit differentiation, but the description lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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