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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose sorting ('newest first') and a currency-mixing rule ('Totals are kept per currency, never mixed'), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, error behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only status (though implied). The added context is moderate but not comprehensive for a list tool.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('List job cards newest first') and then lists fields and filters. Every clause contributes value: sorting, field list, filter capabilities, and the currency rule. It is slightly long but efficient and well-organized, with no redundant wording.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the returned fields (client, site, status, hours logged, totals) and specifies ordering and currency handling. It omits potential details like pagination or response limits, but for a simple list tool with two optional filters, the provided information is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The only gap is a lack of mention of any default limits or paging behavior.

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%, with both parameters (client and status) fully described in the schema. The description only restates that filtering is possible without adding extra meaning (e.g., case-insensitivity is already in the schema, and the status enum is also in the schema). Thus the description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List job cards') and resource, and enumerates the exact fields returned (client, site, status, hours, totals in cents). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like job_card_get (single retrieval) and job_card_create by its list nature and filter options. The verb and resource are precise, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage (use when you need a list of job cards) and mentions filters by status and client, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like job_card_summary or job_card_get, nor does it state when NOT to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or direct sibling comparisons, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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