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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: default date window, newest-first ordering, 100-job page cap, cursor-based pagination, and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the returned-field list is stated twice ('status, client, address, assigned techs and amount due' then again as 'assigned team members, total and amount due'), which is redundant bloat in a short description.

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 appropriately enumerates the returned fields, and it covers pagination, defaults, filtering, and auth. For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only error/empty-result behavior is unstated.

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 schema already documents all six params including defaults and the cursor. The description echoes the filtering and pagination params and adds the ordering guarantee, but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Jobs by scheduled date') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows this lists jobs rather than fetching one. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like workiz_get_job or workiz_get_schedule, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives filtering guidance ('Filter by status or by team member to narrow the list') and pagination instructions, which is useful operational context. However, it never states when to prefer this over workiz_get_job (single job) or workiz_get_schedule, so the usage boundary is only implied.

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