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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral value: results are ordered oldest-first, recurring jobs appear once per visit, and it requires the user's Cotlet API key with app access. These are non-obvious traits 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-loaded with scope and content, but the first two sentences largely duplicate each other ('with customer, services and assigned crew member' vs 'with customer, services and the crew member each job is assigned to'), which is minor 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers ordering, recurrence behavior, filterability, and auth needs, which is sufficient for a list tool whose safety profile is already carried by annotations. Return-shape details are the only omission.

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 all five parameters are already documented; the description only restates the filterable dimensions (status, crew, customer) without adding format or default details beyond the schema. 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 specific verb+resource (lists jobs) with scope (date range) and content (customer, services, assigned crew member). It clearly differs from sibling get_job/schedule_job/complete_job, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Offers filtering context ('Filter by status, crew member or customer') but never states when to use this versus alternatives like yardbook_get_customer or a single-job fetch, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key note.

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