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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: statuses are per-account customizable, they map to a UI location (My Office > Estimate & Job Statuses), and an API key with app access is required.

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 purpose ('The job statuses your account uses, with their type') before caveats. The enumeration of all default status names is somewhat verbose, but it is arguably useful reference material for an agent reasoning about statuses.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: source of truth, account-specific renaming behavior, downstream usage, and auth requirements.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly implies no input is required to retrieve the account's status list.

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 ('The job statuses your account uses, with their type') and clarifies the scope is account-specific. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_jobs, which it points to as a consumer of these values.

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 tells the agent to use these names with list_jobs and update_job_status, and warns that accounts can rename statuses so the literal values matter. It does not name a when-not or an alternative status-listing tool, but no such sibling exists, so guidance is strong.

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