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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit by disclosing US-only availability, newest-first ordering, a hard cap of 50 with no next page, and the required jobs:read scope.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences that lead with what is returned and then layer constraints. The 50-result cap is stated twice ('up to 50' and 'Shows up to 50 recent jobs'), which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained. Between the ordering, cap, no-pagination note, region restriction, and scope requirement, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a one-optional-parameter list tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the 1-50 range and adds the default of 50, which the schema does not declare, but adds no other meaning beyond the schema's minimum/maximum.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the signed-in homeowner's own home-project requests, newest first. The 'own' scoping and the homeowner framing distinguish it from bid- or status-oriented siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 through 'signed-in homeowner's own' and notes 'read-only', but never says when to prefer this over get_job_status or list_bids, and gives no exclusion beyond the implicit single-job vs. list distinction.

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