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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds real behavioral context: it returns a JC-YYYY-NNNN number, and it discloses the 10-active-card free-tier limit with the fact that archiving frees a slot. It does not cover auth or error-on-limit behavior, but the quota context is genuinely useful.

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, no filler. The first clearly states purpose, inputs, and return value; the second adds the practical quota constraint. 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 six-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description covers the required fields, the ID return format, the scheduling intent, and the active-card limit. It does not specify behavior when the limit is reached or the full response shape, but the core calling context is complete.

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%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description mirrors client, site, description, currency, and scheduled_date in plain language but adds no deeper meaning, defaults, or edge-case details, and it omits the optional note parameter.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Open') on a specific resource ('job card'), states the returned JC-YYYY-NNNN identifier, and lists the key fields. Among siblings like job_card_get and job_card_list, it is unmistakably the creation operation.

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 clear context: use this when your crew is taking on a job and needs an active job card. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the free-tier active-card limit implies lifecycle management around archiving.

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