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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that it 'sends nothing to the customer, so it runs without asking for your OK' — a genuine side-effect statement — and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. It doesn't describe idempotency or return behavior, keeping it at 4.

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-loads the core action and is mostly information-dense, but the second and third sentences ('Adds a job for a customer on the date of the first visit') restate the opening with minor redundancy. It is not padded, but it could be tightened.

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 6-param scheduling mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: customer/services sourcing, recurring semantics, notification behavior, and auth. It is close to complete, missing only any indication of what the call returns (e.g., a job ID) or pagination.

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 anchors the baseline at 3. The description adds real meaning on top: it clarifies the recurring-job effect of the 'repeat' parameter and that 'services' must be names drawn from the product/service catalog, reducing misuse of a free-text array.

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: 'Add a one-time or recurring job to the schedule.' It immediately scopes the operation (single vs recurring) and distinguishes itself from read/write siblings like yardbook_list_jobs and yardbook_complete_job without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: it explains that 'repeat' set to weekly/biweekly produces a recurring job, and that services come from the product catalog and the customer from list_customers. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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