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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, closed-world read (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the default date range and the output shape hint that each line ends with a job id other tools consume, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or empty-result behavior.

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 no filler: date scope first, filter options second, the special customer mode third, and the output hint last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 five-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, it covers the date default, the customer shortcut, and what a returned line contains. The main omission is the meaning of status and tech values, which an agent would have to guess or probe.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must supply meaning and does so for three of five params: from/to as YYYY-MM-DD with a default of today, and customer accepting a name or phone. status and tech are named but never explained (accepted values, matching behavior), leaving a real gap.

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?

The description names a specific resource (jobs) and scope (between two dates, optionally filtered by status/tech), and adds a distinct lookup mode via customer. It is clearly a read/list tool distinguishable from siblings like update_job or book_job, though it never names an alternative 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?

It gives one concrete usage instruction — pass a customer name or phone to find that customer's jobs on any date — and states the default (today) when dates are omitted. It does not say when to prefer find_customer, what_did_i_miss, or office_summary instead, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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