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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the create side effect, the exact return format, and a meaningful constraint (10 active cards, archiving frees a slot). It stops short of describing what happens at the limit or permission requirements, but the key behavioral traits are honestly and usefully exposed.

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 sentences, zero fluff: the first front-loads the action, return value, and required data; the second adds a genuinely useful constraint. Every phrase 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema create tool with 6 params, the description covers the essential contract: what it creates, what it returns, and the card-limit context. It does not explain error behavior at the cap or the meaning of 'note', but the high schema coverage and clear return format make it largely complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 83% (5 of 6 parameters documented), so the baseline is 3. The description lightly reflects the schema fields by listing 'the client, the site, what the job is, the currency and when it is scheduled', but it adds no new syntax, format detail, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The optional 'note' parameter remains undocumented in both.

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 states a specific action ('Open a job card'), the resource, and the return value ('JC-YYYY-NNNN number'), and lists the data it takes: client, site, description, currency, scheduled date. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like job_card_update_status and job_card_delete, which are different operations on the same resource.

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?

Usage is implied: create a card when your crew takes on a job. The free-tier note ('10 active cards; archiving a finished job frees its slot') hints at capacity constraints, but no alternatives are named and there is no explicit 'use X instead when...' guidance. An agent would infer when to call it, but not formally.

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