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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/ destructiveHint=false/ openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the default-active filtering behavior, the 100-per-page page size with next_cursor round-tripping, and the requirement for a Cotlet API key with app access. That is real added value with no contradiction.

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 critical details (default active scope, pagination, auth) are front-loaded and earn their place. But the first two sentences say the same thing — 'Jobs with number, customer, site address, status and assigned staff' is immediately restated as 'Lists jobs with their number, customer, site address, status and assigned staff' — which is wasted space.

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 list tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotate-covered safety, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: default filtering, pagination contract, and auth requirement. Only the absence of a hint about combining search/customer_id filters or result ordering keeps it from a 5.

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% — every one of the five parameters already carries a description, including the full status enum and the cursor semantics. The description's restatement of 'status' values and cursor passing adds nothing the schema does not already say, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Lists jobs') and resource, and enumerates the returned fields (number, customer, site address, status, assigned staff). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tradify_get_job (single job) and tradify_create_job (mutation). The only blemish is a redundant opening fragment, but intent is unmistakable.

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 states the default scope ('returns active jobs') and how to widen it ('set status to see to-invoice, on hold, complete or cancelled jobs'), which is useful conditional guidance. However, it never contrasts this tool with siblings such as tradify_get_job or tradify_list_appointments, and gives no explicit when-not-to-use. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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