Get punchlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description is consistent ('Read only.'). It adds real context beyond them: which fields come back, and the important caveat that line items are excluded and must be viewed in Contractor Foreman.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the first fragment largely restates the second sentence ('project, address, customer' and 'open and completed' appear twice). One sentence of duplication keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — which it does thoroughly, including the notable absence of line items. Only error behavior for an invalid id is unaddressed.

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% and the single punchlist_id parameter is already documented with its source ('from list_punchlists'). The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Returns one punchlist') and enumerates the fields returned: project, address, customer, open/completed item counts, creator and timestamp. The singular 'one punchlist' implicitly separates it from list_punchlists, but no sibling is named outright.

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 is implied rather than stated: the id comes 'from list_punchlists', and the description warns the items themselves are not returned. It never explicitly says when to call this vs. list_punchlists, but the limitation note effectively steers the agent away from expecting item detail.

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