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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: 'Workflow automations may fire' (a side effect) and that record_type_name/status_name 'must match the account settings' (a validation constraint). It stops short of describing the return payload, but adds meaningful value over the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and required fields, then supporting detail, ending with the REST endpoint. Efficient overall, though the parenthetical examples make it slightly denser than needed.

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 17-param creation tool with a fully documented schema, nested custom_fields, and no output schema, the description covers the required inputs, contact linking, side effects, and the underlying endpoint. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 17 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds light semantics ('record_type_name (a job workflow, e.g. Residential)' and 'status_name (a status in it, e.g. Lead)') plus the account-settings match constraint, but does not materially extend 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 (project)') and maps clearly against siblings like create_contact, create_task, and update_job. An agent can tell immediately this creates a new job record rather than modifying one.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Create a job', and it gives a nudge to link the homeowner via primary_contact_id, but it never states when to use this versus update_job or whether a contact must exist first. No explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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