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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful side effect — the home is matched or created from the address — which is useful write-behavior context. It says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, whether a visit/calendar entry is created, or what happens to an existing home when the address differs.

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 tight sentence with the key side effect in parentheses — no padding. It is arguably too compressed given the parameter set, but nothing written is wasted.

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 mutation tool with a nested address object, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough to call it correctly. Missing: what constitutes a valid address for matching, whether the call fails or creates a duplicate home, and what the caller gets back.

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 0% across 4 parameters including a nested address object with five fields. The description only explains address implicitly ('found or created from the address'); shop_id, customer_id, and summary are unexplained, and required vs optional is not addressed in prose.

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: start (create) a job tied to a home address. It is distinguishable from jobs_complete, jobs_get, jobs_list, and jobs_record by the creation framing, though 'start' is slightly ambiguous versus jobs_record (recording work on a job).

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus jobs_record, visits_create, or requests_convert, and no prerequisites such as required shop_id or whether a customer must exist first. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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