jobber_list_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the returned fields and search filtering, which is useful. However, it omits pagination behavior, continuation semantics, and any caveats about result completeness or ordering. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but side-effect and safety traits are not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by return-field details and search behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description provides the key return fields and search behavior. It lacks an explicit mention of pagination continuation, but the 'after' parameter schema already covers that. No output schema exists, so the stated return fields help fill that gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the search-by-name-or-company semantics already present in the schema and adds no meaning for the 'limit' or 'after' parameters. It provides no extra value beyond the structured parameter descriptions.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List clients from Jobber.' It also states the returned fields (name, email, phone, billing address) and the optional search capability. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on jobs, invoices, quotes, or schedule operations.

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: an agent should call this when it needs client records. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The resource name makes the use case fairly obvious, but routing guidance is minimal.

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