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

With all annotation hints set to false, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It meaningfully adds the 'Touched means a labor or material entry dated inside the window' rule and the Monday-to-Sunday week definition, which go beyond the schema. It does not explicitly claim read-only behavior, but the summary intent makes mutation unlikely.

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 with no filler. The core summary output is front-loaded, and the additional sentences define the only genuinely ambiguous terms: the week boundary and the word 'touched'. Every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description listing the return categories (job cards touched, hours per worker, labor/materials/total value per currency) is important and largely sufficient. It stops short of specifying exact response structure or edge cases like empty windows, but an agent can select and call the tool confidently.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics beyond the schema by explaining that a week runs Monday to Sunday and by defining what counts as a touched job card. This helps an agent correctly interpret the date and span parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: summarize job cards for a day or weekcars, and clearly lists the output dimensions: touched job cards, hours per worker, and labor/materials/total value by currency. This differentiates it from sibling lookup tools like job_card_get and job_card_list by its aggregate nature.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you need hourly or monetary totals for a day or week. It also clarifies the date-window semantics, including that a week is Monday-to-Sunday. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or points to alternatives such as job_card_list for raw itemized data.

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