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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are sorted newest-sale-first, pages hold up to 200 jobs, and a Cotlet API key scoped to this app is required. That sorting, pagination ceiling, and auth requirement are exactly the kinds of facts annotations don't convey.

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?

The opening sentence is a truncated fragment ("MarketSharp: Jobs with job number, customer, ...") that is then essentially repeated in the second sentence, wasting space on duplication. The remaining sentences are informative, but the front-loaded redundancy costs it.

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 annotation coverage and complete schema descriptions, the definition is nearly sufficient: it covers returned fields, sort order, page size, filters, and the auth requirement. It only lacks explicit routing versus sibling job tools, which is minor here.

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 limit, sold_to, sold_from, and job_status. The description reinforces the date filtering and the 200-item page size, aligning with the limit param, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ("Lists jobs") and enumerates the fields returned (job number, customer, statuses, dates), making the purpose unmistakable and separable by verb from the singular marketsharp_get_job. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 tells the agent it can filter by sale date or by a Job Status value, which hints at when the tool is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor names alternatives like marketsharp_get_job or marketsharp_search_contacts. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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