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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotated context: keyset paging ('Returns one page (keyset paging: pass next_cursor as start_cursor)') and the domain relationship that a finished work order produces a service entry. It stops short of richer operational detail like rate limits or auth scopes.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, filters, domain relationship, endpoint/paging), with the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the 'GET /work_orders' fragment adds little for an agent that already has the tool name.

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?

With no output schema and 15 parameters, the description compensates reasonably by naming the returned entities and explaining the keyset pagination contract. It is nearly complete for a filtered list tool, though it omits anything about response size limits beyond per_page and default ordering specifics.

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 schema already documents all 15 parameters including the sort enum and ISO-8601 date filters. The description merely restates a subset of the filters (vehicle, vendor, technician, number, status name) without adding syntax or format guidance, matching the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List work orders') and disambiguates the domain term with the parenthetical '(shop jobs)'. It also enumerates the attributes returned (status, vehicle, vendor, technician), which cleanly separates it from the single-record sibling fleetio_get_work_order and the related fleetio_list_work_order_line_items.

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 names the filterable dimensions and gives a status example ('Open'), which implies when the tool is useful, but it never states when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g. fleetio_list_work_order_statuses to discover valid status names) or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out, so this is minimum-viable guidance.

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