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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/open-world, so the description's added value is the visibility scope ('jobs your account can see') and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app). It says nothing about pagination or result ordering despite the presence of a limit parameter.

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 first two sentences are near-duplicates ('jobs in your company with status, address, project manager and dates' vs. 'returns the jobs your account can see, with status, address and project manager'), and the auth note is tacked on at the end. Functional but padded rather than front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of listing returned fields, and it covers defaults, search behavior and auth. It is close to complete for a simple read-only list tool, missing only pagination/ordering behavior for the limit parameter.

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 limit, search and status. The description echoes the same facts (search matches name/address/client, default status open) and even omits the 'all' enum value present in the schema, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the structured field.

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 (list jobs) plus the returned fields (status, address, project manager, dates), so an agent immediately knows what comes back. There is no competing job-listing sibling under the Buildertrend prefix, so explicit differentiation isn't required, but the second sentence largely restates the first.

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 concrete downstream context ('Use job_id from each item in the other tools') and states the status-filter default (open), which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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