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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete side effects: a new client and property are created when no existing client matches, existing Jobber records are never edited or deleted, and retries return the already-pushed quote. It also names failure conditions (Jobber not connected, unpriced line), which the openWorldHint alone could not convey.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: action, precondition, side effects, retry/failure behavior. The most critical constraint (wait for confirmation) is placed early, and there is no filler.

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?

For a cross-system write with no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: destination, draft status, confirmation gate, required inputs, created entities, non-destructive guarantee, idempotent retry semantics, and failure modes.

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 only 40% schema description coverage, the description carries real weight: it clarifies client name is required conditionally ('if not already on the quote') and that email and job site address are optional enrichments. It leaves clientPhone and quoteId unaddressed, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb, resource and destination: 'Create the quote in the contractor's connected Jobber account, as a draft they review and send from Jobber.' This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like draft_quote (local) and get_quote/list_quotes (read-only) by naming the external system and the draft-stage handoff.

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?

Explicit precondition ('Only call after the contractor explicitly confirms the draft') and an explicit next step handled elsewhere ('draft they review and send from Jobber'), plus an instruction on gathering missing client data. This tells the agent both when to call and where its responsibility ends.

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