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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: page size cap of 50 jobs, sort order (newest first), and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app). It does not describe cursor pagination behavior explicitly, though the schema's cursor param implies it.

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 field list, and every later sentence (filtering, get_job routing, page size, auth) earns its place. However, the first two sentences overlap heavily by naming the same fields ('customer, schedule, assigned team and total' then again 'customer, the service address, the scheduled start, the assigned team members and the job total'), which is mild redundancy.

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 correctly carries the return-shape burden by naming the fields each job record includes, plus pagination, sort order, and auth prerequisites. It is essentially complete for a read-only list tool; only explicit cursor-based paging flow is left to the schema.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates filtering by customer and scheduled date but adds no format, boundary, or interaction detail 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?

Specific verb (Lists) + resource (jobs) + scope (newest first, filtered by customer or scheduled date), with the exact fields returned named. It is cleanly distinguished from the sibling housecall-pro_get_job by stating that line items and invoices come from that tool instead.

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 usage conditions ('Filter by customer or by scheduled date to see what is booked') and routes the agent to get_job for line items/invoices, which is real sibling differentiation. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or how this differs from the many other vendors' list_jobs tools.

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