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

Beyond the annotations (which already mark it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the non-obvious behavior that customer_id filters after each page is read, so a short page can still carry next_cursor and paging must continue. That is exactly the kind of pagination/filter interaction an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filters and the paging caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields and defining the paging contract. For a four-parameter read-only list tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to know when to switch to get_job.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it states that customer_id filtering applies post-page-read (a semantic not captured in the schema), and clarifies status values correspond to work statuses with paging implications.

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?

Names the resource (jobs), the sort order (newest first), and enumerates the returned fields (customer, schedule, assigned employees, total, balance), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_job without opening 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 the filter dimensions to use (work status, customer_id) and explicitly routes line items and invoices to get_job, plus a paging instruction. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_customers or list_estimates, but the guidance present is actionable.

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