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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so credit goes to the added behavior: default sort is most-recently-modified first, page cap of 100, cursor round-trip via next_cursor, and the auth requirement of a Cotlet API key with app access. That is meaningful operational context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then filtering, then pagination and auth. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the milestone enum and search-target list duplicate what the schema already enumerates.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the returned field set, default sort order, page size and cursor mechanics, and the auth prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema (milestone values, search fields, page size) but does add the ordering default context for sort_by, which is marginal added value rather than a real extension.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Jobs in your location') and enumerates the fields returned (name, address, milestone, priority, dates), which cleanly separates it from the single-job sibling acculynx_get_job. An agent can tell it is a scoped, location-bound list operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: filter by milestone, or search across job name/address/contact name, and states the default ordering. It does not explicitly route away from alternatives (e.g. get_job for a single record, or list_estimates), so it stops short of a 5.

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