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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open world), and the description builds on that by disclosing the default active-only filter and the authentication requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). That goes beyond what the structured fields declare, though it says nothing about pagination or result limits.

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 and its fields, then layers in default behavior, downstream usage, and auth in a compact sequence. Every sentence carries information, though the framing is slightly list-like rather than tightened prose.

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 appropriately names the returned fields and the account-scoped visibility, and it notes the auth requirement. For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete, missing only pagination/limit expectations.

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 all three parameters (active, search, customer) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the default-active behavior but adds no filtering syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (ClockShark jobs), and adds the returned fields (number, stage, customer, address) plus the source location (Work > Jobs). This is clearly a filtered-list tool. It does not explicitly contrast with clockshark_get_job or clockshark_create_job, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 useful context: default-only-active behavior and a downstream hint ('Use job_id from here in time, schedule and comment tools'). However, it never states when to pick this over clockshark_get_job for a single record, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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