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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds useful conventions (line-item prices are in cents) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about permissions, side effects such as customer notifications, or whether the created job is returned. Given the low bar set by a single annotation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences; the required inputs and the address-id source come first. The trailing 'Housecall Pro: POST /jobs.' is low-value metadata for an agent choosing a tool, costing it a perfect score.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-object creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical onboarding facts: the customer/address prerequisites, where to fetch address ids, and the cents pricing convention. The main omission is the return shape (presumably the new job id needed for follow-up calls like dispatch or line-item listing), which the absent output schema leaves unexplained.

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 55%, so the schema documents many fields (address_id, schedule sub-fields, unit_price/unit_cost in cents, invoice_number uniqueness) while notes, lead_source, and business_unit_id remain undocumented in both places. The description's 'optionally scheduled, assigned, tagged and with line items' only roughly maps the parameter groups and adds little beyond the schema.

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 (Create) and resource (a job) and immediately bounds it: 'for an existing customer at one of their existing addresses.' That scoping distinguishes it from siblings like housecall_create_customer, housecall_create_estimate, and housecall_create_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 clear preconditions (existing customer, existing address) and routes the agent to housecall_get_customer to obtain address ids, which is the main upstream dependency. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for estimates or leads) or what to do after creation, so it is context-rich but not exhaustive.

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