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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned data (the five fields), which is useful, but offers no other behavioral context such as ordering or scope limits.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the resource and its fields are front-loaded, followed by disambiguating trigger phrases. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the listed return fields adequately convey what comes back. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor room for stating scope or ordering.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry. Baseline of 4 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 resource (jobs) with a clear temporal scope ('today's') and enumerates the returned fields (time, customer, technician, status, priority). This differentiates it from broader job tools like find_jobs or technician_jobs by its 'today' constraint, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrases ('today's schedule', 'what's on today', morning brief), which tell an agent exactly when this tool is the right call. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternatives like find_jobs for non-today queries.

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