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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, and the mention of statuses gives some sense of the output. However, it does not disclose pagination, result size, authentication implications, or whether statuses are returned alongside jobs or as a separate list.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and object immediately and wastes no words.

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 read tool with one optional parameter this is almost sufficient, but the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should do more to clarify the return shape and edge behaviors. The current text leaves the relationship between jobs, work orders, and statuses ambiguous.

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 100%, so the status parameter is already documented. The description's mention of 'statuses' aligns with that parameter but adds no new semantic detail such as allowed formats, default behavior, or how filtering affects results.

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 identifies a clear action ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('job work orders and statuses'), and a source ('Jobber'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobber_get_invoices and jobber_get_quotes. It does not, however, explicitly say it lists all jobs or how it relates to jobber_create_job.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no context about how the status filter should be used in selection. The only usage signal is implicit in the name and the optional status parameter.

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