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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds beyond them by disclosing the auth prerequisite ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app') and the output shape (change orders with line items, total and approval status), which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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-loads the resource correctly, but the opening fragment 'Change orders with title, amount, line items and approval status' largely restates the name/title and then overlaps with the next sentence, which repeats line items and approval status. The redundancy costs it, though overall length is reasonable.

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 2-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, a filter use case, return contents and the auth requirement. Only sibling routing and pagination behavior are left unspecified.

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 schema already documents both job_id and the approval_status enum with its default. The description adds only a light gloss ('to see what still waits on the client') on the pending filter and does not cover parameter syntax or format beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the change orders of one job') plus the returned fields (line items, total, approval status), which is enough to tell it apart from buildertrend_create_change_order and buildertrend_release_change_order. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 line 'Filter by pending, approved or declined to see what still waits on the client' gives a concrete use case for one parameter, and 'of one job' implies the job-scoped retrieval context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling change-order tools (create/release).

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