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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: newest-first ordering, 50-per-page pagination with next_cursor/cursor handoff, and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app). These are useful behavioral traits not present in the structured fields.

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 the purpose and returned fields, then search, then pagination, then auth. Mostly efficient, but 'newest first' appears twice in consecutive sentences, which is a small redundancy that could be trimmed.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers returned fields, ordering, pagination mechanics, search semantics, and auth prerequisites. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly across pages is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description still adds value: it explains what search matches on (name, email or phone), the 50-item page ceiling, and the cursor round-trip ('pass next_cursor back as cursor'). That is meaning beyond the one-line schema descriptions.

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 ('Lists clients') plus the returned fields (name, contact details, open balance) and ordering (newest first). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like jobber_get_client (single record) and jobber_create_client (mutation).

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?

Explicitly frames the search parameter's purpose ('find one client before creating a duplicate'), which is real when-to-use guidance tied to avoiding duplicates. It stops short of naming the alternative single-record tool (jobber_get_client) for a known client, so it's clear context without full alternative routing.

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