mobile_punch_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by noting the fallback behavior for office_id (to TIPSOI_OFFICE_ID) and that it's a report. No contradictions. However, it does not discuss pagination limits or the structure of the output.

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 one clear sentence plus a concise Args list. Every part earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No waste.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (a report) and covers all parameters. It could mention the expected format of the report (e.g., list of records), but for a simple report with 4 parameters, it is largely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it specifies date format (YYYY-MM-DD inclusive), the fallback for office_id, and that per_page controls pagination size. This adds needed meaning beyond the schema's basic types and titles.

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 identifies the tool as a report for mobile punch (app-based check-in/out including selfie attendance), which is distinct from sibling tools like daily_attendance_summary or monthly_attendance. The verb 'report' and specific resource 'mobile punch' leave no 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?

The description implies usage for generating mobile punch reports but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for daily summaries or monthly attendance). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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