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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are paginated and this call returns a single page rather than the full set, but it says nothing about how filters combine, whether unknown filters are ignored or error, or how the vendor pagination object is shaped.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the resource, then the endpoint, then the pagination caveat. The opening noun-phrase fragment ('Contractor work orders, status, title, costs, dates and linked maintenance task') is slightly ambiguous between query inputs and response fields, but nothing is wasted.

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 a 13-parameter tool with no output schema and under half of schema descriptions filled, the description does too little: it never explains the filter parameters an agent must actually choose, nor does it hint at the record shape beyond a comma list. Only the pagination behavior is adequately addressed.

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 only 46%: page, limit, sort, direction and the two dates are documented, but _q, ref, contractor, emergency, quote_required, status and title are bare. The description's field list (status, title, costs, dates) reads as the shape of returned records rather than an explanation of what those query parameters match, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the resource (contractor work orders) and enumerates the fields returned (status, title, costs, dates, linked maintenance task), plus the underlying endpoint GET /v2/workorders. The list-vs-get distinction from sibling arthur_get_workorder is only implied by convention, not stated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than arthur_get_workorder, arthur_list_tasks, or the other list siblings. The only usage-adjacent statement is the pagination caveat ('this is one page, not the whole portfolio'), which is behavior, not selection guidance.

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