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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it returns the new job_id, states the default per-call confirmation (and that it can be disabled), warns it reaches other people, and lists the required Cotlet API key access. That is richer disclosure than the annotations alone provide.

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-loaded with the core purpose and resource, then layered with behavioral notes. Sentences mostly earn their place, though the confirmation and access-key remarks add some verbosity without new invocation detail.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the important extras an agent needs: return value (job_id), confirmation policy, cross-user reach, and auth requirement. No output schema exists but the description names the returned job_id, so completeness is solid.

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 all six parameters, including client_id vs. client and the job_type constraint. The description largely restates these ('job type must be one of your Workiz job types', existing client via client_id or new via client) without adding format or syntax detail, matching the baseline of 3.

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 and resource ('Creates a job') and clarifies it handles both an existing client (client_id) and a new one (client object), along with job type, time window and notes. It is clear but does not explicitly name siblings like workiz_reschedule_job or workiz_get_job to distinguish scope.

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?

Provides indirect usage context (existing vs. new client, confirmation required per call), but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as reschedule_job or create_estimate. Guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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