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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the mandatory-filter rule and that results are paged, but says nothing about page size (only in schema), next_page chaining, or behavior on an empty/invalid filter set.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the resource definition, then the hard constraint, then format and paging. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is serviceable but thin: it omits how paging works (next_page from the prior reply), the special 'ready' status semantics, and any sense of result volume. The mandatory-filter rule is the one piece of real added value.

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's one addition is the cross-parameter constraint that at least one of user_id, department_id, or form_id must be supplied — helpful, but the ISO-8601 note merely restates the schema's pattern and loses to the schema's clearer status semantics (ready ignores date filters).

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 and defines it parenthetically ('jobs sent to field workers'), then enumerates the fields returned, which distinguishes it from gocanvas_get_dispatch (single record) without naming that sibling explicitly. The verb 'list' is only implied via the tool name and the field enumeration.

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?

It states a real filter precondition ('At least one of user_id, department_id or form_id is required'), which is genuinely useful since the schema marks zero parameters required. However, it gives no routing guidance against siblings like gocanvas_get_dispatch or gocanvas_list_submissions, leaving when-to-use largely inferred.

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