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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the result includes past jobs and balance due, and it explicitly states the Cotlet API key/auth requirement with app access.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; scope, return content and usage come in a logical order. The 'Workiz:' prefix is mildly redundant with the title but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (contact details, past jobs, balance due), plus the auth requirement. Pagination behavior for the limit parameter is not addressed, a minor gap for a 2-param list tool.

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 both parameters (limit, query) are already documented. The description restates the query semantics (name, phone, email or address) without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which lands at the baseline 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 (search/list) and resource (Workiz clients) and enumerates the searchable fields (name, phone, email, address). It also describes the return payload (contact details, past jobs, balance due), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling list tools like workiz_list_jobs and workiz_list_leads.

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?

'Use the client_id in create_job, create_estimate and the other tools' gives clear downstream context for when this tool is needed. It lacks any explicit exclusion or mention of an alternative (e.g., get_job for job-scoped client data), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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