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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description does most of the behavioral work. It usefully discloses that times are property-local (a real behavioral constraint not in the schema), but it says nothing about permissions, what the created job returns, or how scheduling conflicts or idempotency are handled. Adequate but thin for a create tool.

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 earning its place: purpose, time semantics, prerequisite tool, and endpoint. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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, the description would ideally note what the call returns, and annotations are minimal. However, it covers the key operational facts an agent needs — property-local timing, the UID source, optional lead linkage, and the endpoint — making it largely complete for a create call.

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 most params are documented there. The description still adds value by explaining that 'Times are property-local' — critical semantics for timezone-less START/END patterns — and by clarifying that lead_uid is optional. It does not elaborate on the status enum beyond what the schema states.

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'), scopes it with concrete examples ('a cleaning or a guest greeting'), and locates it as a service-at-property operation optionally tied to a lead. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like hostfully_create_lead or hostfully_list_jobs without needing to open 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?

Provides real routing guidance: it names 'hostfully_list_services' as the source of the service UID and clarifies that the lead tie-in is optional. There is no explicit when-not or description of failure conditions, but the prerequisite pointer gives clear operational context.

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