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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds useful auth context and notes that the description field is surfaced to field employees, but the phrase "It reaches no one by itself and runs without asking" is garbled and does not clearly convey whether any notifications are sent.

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 opening sentence and the second sentence repeat the same field list (customer, address, description), wasting space. "It reaches no one by itself and runs without asking" is vague padding that muddies rather than front-loads meaning.

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 create tool with no output schema it covers the creatable fields, the auth requirement, and the employee-visible note, which is adequate. However, the ambiguous side-effect sentence and absence of any success/return behavior leave minor gaps.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the same fields (number, customer, address, description, budget_hours) without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ("Creates a job") and enumerates the key fields (number, customer, address, description, labor budget). It is distinguishable from siblings like clockshark_get_job and clockshark_list_jobs, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It states a prerequisite ("Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app"), which is helpful context, but offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is only implied by the create verb in the name.

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