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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by saying the search returns blockers and approvals and that technician access is assigned-only, though it does not cover pagination or result-shape details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with when-to-use guidance, and contains no wasted wording. It stays compact while covering purpose, filters, return context, and access constraint.

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 annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers high-level purpose and some filters, but for an 11-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, more parameter semantics and pagination/result context would be needed. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps several filters conceptually (status, open-only, priority, site, technician, text, date), but it does not explain all 11 parameters, such as page, pageSize, or assetId, and does not give value formats or examples.

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: it searches authorized jobs/work orders by filters and returns blockers and approvals. This is clearly distinguishable from draft or detail-oriented siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with similarly named siblings such as view_work_orders.

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 opening sentence gives clear when-to-use guidance: locating jobs by status, priority, site or technician. It also notes that technician access is assigned-only. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives for single-record or list-oriented views.

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