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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only uses 'Retrieve' to imply read-only behavior, but does not disclose what happens when the optional status filter is omitted, whether results are paginated, or how 'outstanding balances' relate to invoices. Critical behavioral details are missing.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, making it maximally concise.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate, but given no annotations and no output schema, it leaves important gaps such as default behavior, response format, and the relationship between invoices and balances. It could be more complete without becoming verbose.

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% with the status parameter fully described. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('billing invoices and outstanding balances') from 'Jobber', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch jobs, quotes, or visits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, and the phrase 'outstanding balances' is somewhat ambiguous about whether they are separate data objects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions, and no exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and resource type.

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