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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavior: the line value is hours times rate, rounded half-up to the cent and fixed at log time. However, it does not disclose side effects on the job card, whether the operation is append-only, permission requirements, or failure behavior, which are significant for a write operation.

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 contain all essential information with no filler. The core operation and fields are front-loaded, and the important value-calculation rule is stated clearly at the end.

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?

Given that all parameters are fully described in the schema and the description clarifies the value calculation, an agent has enough to construct a valid call. Missing details like response format, confirmation of what was logged, and side effects on the job card are gaps, but they do not prevent correct invocation for the primary use case.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description only loosely restates the fields ('who did the work, the day, the hours and the hourly rate') and adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; the rounding detail is about output/value behavior rather than parameter interpretation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Log'), a specific resource ('hours worked on a job card'), and the relevant payload fields. It is naturally distinguishable from the sibling job_card_log_material by the labor vs. material framing.

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 it—for hourly labor entries rather than material entries—but it does not explicitly state when to use job_card_log_labor versus job_card_log_material or other siblings. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the intended selection from the title and sibling names.

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