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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: pagination ('30 per page') and an auth requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'). Rate limits or ordering are not disclosed, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the resource and its fields before the pagination, filtering and handoff notes. The 'Kickserv:' prefix is slightly redundant but no sentence is wasted.

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 full schema coverage, the description supplies pagination, filtering scope, auth requirements and a cross-reference to get_job, which is nearly everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Returned field names are given, which compensates for the absent output 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 the schema already documents page, status, employee and scheduled. The description restates the filter dimensions ('filtered by status, scheduled date or technician') without adding format or syntax beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.

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 (jobs) and enumerates the returned fields (status, service type, customer, assigned techs, scheduled date). It clearly distinguishes itself from kickserv_get_job and the write tools, though it does not differentiate from the many sibling *_list_jobs tools on other platforms.

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 implies usage by describing filtering options and by directing the agent to use job_number with get_job and write tools, which is a useful handoff. However, it never states explicitly when to choose this listing over kickserv_list_customers/opportunities or sibling platform listings, leaving routing to inference.

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