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

The description explicitly states 'Reads only' while the annotation readOnlyHint is false. This is a direct contradiction: the description claims the tool has no side effects, but the annotation indicates it might not be read-only. An agent would be misled about the tool's mutating behavior. This is a serious inconsistency and must be flagged as an annotation contradiction.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read one job card in full') and then lists the specific data returned. It is concise, with no filler or redundancy, and every element earns its place. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (labor entries, materials, hours, totals, formatting). It does not mention error conditions or behavior when the card is not found, but for a read tool this is a minor gap. The main incompleteness stems from the annotation contradiction, which is already penalized under behavioral transparency.

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 single parameter 'card' is fully documented in the schema, including the two acceptable forms (JC number or client name). The description repeats this information ('by JC number or client') but adds no new semantics. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('one job card') and details exactly what is returned: every labor entry, material used, hours per worker, and running totals. It clearly differentiates from siblings like job_card_list (multiple cards) and job_card_summary (summary-only) by emphasizing 'in full'. The 'Reads only' phrasing also signals a non-mutating action, which is a distinct purpose.

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?

The description implies this is the tool for retrieving a single job card in full, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus job_card_list or job_card_summary. No alternatives are named, and no exclusions are provided. The usage context is inferred from the description's focus on full detail rather than stated outright.

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