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

All four annotation hints are false/default, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose real behavior: descending time ordering, totals in cents, and a per-currency guarantee that totals are never mixed. However, it is silent on pagination/limits, whether archived cards appear when no status filter is given, and the response shape.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: list content/order/units, the filters, and the currency invariant. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence with zero filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description does specify the returned fields and denominations, which covers the main return contract. Still, for a tool that lists potentially many records, the absence of any pagination or size-limit information and the unspecified default inclusion of archived cards are material gaps.

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 100%; both parameters are already documented (client = case-insensitive contains match; status = closed set of five values). The description only mirrors that filtering by status and client is possible, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('List job cards') and adds ordering ('newest first') plus the exact fields returned, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like job_card_get (single card) and job_card_summary (aggregate), but it never names or contrasts them 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?

The description implies when to use the tool — when an agent needs an ordered, filterable set of job cards with detailed totals — but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and points to no alternative for other needs. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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