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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-state mutation. It adds the free-tier open-order limit and the return format. However, it does not disclose duplicate-handling behavior (duplicate_ok) or failure conditions, which are material to a create 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and return value, then lists the key fields. It is compact and wastes no words, though the colon-list format is a little dense.

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 an 11-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description names the return format and the free-tier limit, but omits the duplicate handling, prerequisite client_address behavior for unknown clients, and any error or rejection conditions. It is acceptable but not complete.

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 description merely recites parameter names already present in the schema ('client, site address, date, job, urgency') without adding new semantic detail. Schema coverage is 73% and the schema already documents client, priority, and duplicate_ok. The description adds no extra meaning to any parameter.

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 the exact action ('Raise a job order') and the returned identifier format. The list of fields clarifies scope, and the create action is clearly distinct from siblings like work_order_get or work_order_add_line.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of work_order_add_line or work_order_status. The 'Free tier' note is a constraint, not a selection rule. An agent must infer that creation is the right call from the name alone.

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