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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: it discloses the return shape (id, job_number, title, status, schedule, names, coordinates) and that the id is a DB pk usable for navigation, which helps an agent chain calls.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: purpose first, return shape second, alternative routing last. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields. For a read-only, no-required-param finder with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only pagination/limit behavior is left to the schema.

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%, with clear per-parameter descriptions and two enums, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds nothing about filter syntax or combination behavior; the phrase 'common filters' is generic. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is this complete.

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 and resource ('Find jobs') and immediately scopes it with 'with common filters.' It also enumerates the returned fields and explicitly names the sibling (search_freeform) it is not meant to replace, so an agent can distinguish it from find_customers/find_invoices and from freeform search 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 explicit routing: 'Use search_freeform for filters this tool lacks (e.g. by city),' which names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating exclusions for the other related listers (technician_jobs, todays_schedule), so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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