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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it sends nothing to the customer, running without asking first, and requires a Cotlet API key with app access. It also explains side effects (job_number returned). It doesn't cover rate limits or reversibility.

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 core create action, then the as_opportunity variant, then side-effect/auth notes. Every sentence adds information. The 'Kickserv: New job...' opening is slightly redundant with the name/title but remains informative.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key auth and side-effect concerns, but omits return/error behavior beyond job_number, and doesn't address what happens after creation (e.g., scheduling, invoicing). Adequate but with 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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters including the as_opportunity default and the description vs. scope_of_work distinction. The description reinforces these conceptual distinctions (internal vs. customer-facing, opportunity behavior) but doesn't add syntax beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3.

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+resource ('Creates a job for a customer') and clarifies the dual mode (job vs. opportunity under New tab). It also notes it returns the job_number. It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling kick serv_get_job/list_jobs, but the create semantics are clear.

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?

Implied usage is creation of a job, and the as_opportunity flag switches to estimate-first opportunity creation. However, it doesn't say when to choose create_job vs as_opportunity in business terms, nor does it point to send_estimate as a follow-up. No explicit when-not guidance.

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