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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does valuable work explaining that the money picture is derived (signed quotes = contract_minor, plus approved change orders = revised_total_minor), which is genuinely behavioral information. However it omits whether the call is read-only (only implied by 'list'), the permissions needed, and pagination/limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource, but the semicolon chain of status categories ('pending ...; invoiced ...; unbilled; ...') is dense and hard to parse on a single read. It's compact but not well structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so the entire description is spent explaining return values that the output schema already defines, while omitting usage guidance and any behavioral caveats. For a financial-summary tool with no annotations, it leaves real gaps.

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 0% for the single job_id parameter, but the description's 'A job's ...' framing makes the scoping clear enough. It adds no format or validation detail (uuid is only in the schema), so it's adequate rather than compensatory.

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?

It names the resource (a job's change orders) and describes the financial figures it returns, but never states the verb or that it's a list operation, and it doesn't distinguish itself from changes_get, changes_invoice, or changes_send. An agent can infer the domain but not the exact operation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must you be job owner?), and no reference to any sibling such as changes_get for a single change order. The agent must guess.

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