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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important behavior: the status lifecycle values, that 'The link is never shown again', and the 'Owner or office only' authorization requirement. It omits pagination/ordering, but those are secondary for a list 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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. A couple of phrases ('when they last opened their page') are terse but still parseable, so nothing 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, status values, link behavior, and authorization. Missing only minor operational details (pagination, ordering), which keeps it from a 5.

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% and no parameter is named directly, but the description implies the job_id vs shop_id split ('on a job, or on every job in the shop') and include_removed is hinted by 'removed' status. This is partial compensation for three entirely undescribed parameters.

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?

Clearly states the resource (subcontractors) and scope (a single job or every job in the shop), plus the returned attributes (status, last-opened). It distinguishes itself from sibling subs_add/subs_update by being the read/list view, though it never names siblings explicitly.

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?

Explains the two usage modes (job-scoped vs shop-wide) and gates access with 'Owner or office only'. It does not name alternatives like subcontractors_get or subs_add, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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