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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description goes well beyond: it discloses that On The Way can text the customer, Completed stops labor time, the call reaches other people, and requires a Cotlet API key with app access. This is exactly the side-effect context an agent needs.

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 purpose, then layers side effects and prerequisites. Mostly efficient, though the confirmation/API-key sentences are somewhat fragmented and slightly redundant, keeping it from a top score.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers prerequisites (API key), side effects, confirmation behavior, and value sourcing. It does not describe the response shape, but for a status-move operation this is minor and nothing critical to correct invocation 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, but the description adds value the schema lacks: example status values (On The Way, Completed, Cancelled) and the authoritative source for names (list_job_statuses). It reinforces rather than merely repeats the schema.

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 (move/set) and resource (job status) with concrete examples (On The Way, Completed, Cancelled). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_job or list_job_statuses without opening any schema.

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?

Routes the agent to list_job_statuses for valid status names and explains the confirmation posture, clearly defining context of use. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternative mutant siblings, but the sibling routing is a strong usage cue.

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