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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description must carry the rest of the burden. It usefully discloses that times are property-local and that the lead tie is optional, but says nothing about auth/permission needs, what happens on a scheduling conflict, or whether an existing job is overwritten. Adds real value but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the UID prerequisite and the raw endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 7-parameter create tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential call prerequisites (required fields, service UID source, property-local time). It omits any indication of what the call returns (e.g. the new job's UID) and conflict/error behavior, which is a minor but real gap.

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 coverage is already 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating that "Times are property-local" — a timezone semantic the schema's format description does not convey — and by clarifying that lead_uid is optional. It does not explain the status enum or notes, but that is not required given schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Schedule a job") and immediately disambiguates with examples ("a cleaning or a guest greeting") plus the objects it acts on (service at a property, optionally a lead). An agent can distinguish this from hostfully_create_lead, hostfully_list_jobs, and hostfully_update_lead without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite chain: use hostfully_list_services to obtain the service UID before calling this. Clear context for when the tool applies, but it does not state exclusions (e.g. how this differs from updating an existing job or what happens if a job already exists for that service/property).

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