jobs_summary

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already covering safety and pagination exposure, the description adds useful grouping and date-filter behavior. However, it does not disclose that counts and totals are computed only over jobs scanned in the current page (page_size 'Max jobs to scan'), which could mislead an agent about whether totals are global.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the resource, grouping, filter semantics, and output shape with no filler. Every clause 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?

The description captures the core purpose, the critical date-field clarification, and the output shape (counts and totals per status). It omits pagination mechanics, but the schema's parameter descriptions fill most of that gap; the lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the stated counts/totals.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions for cursor, page_size, and returned_so_far. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that date_from/date_to refer to job creation date, not scheduling or completion date, which is absent from the parameter docs.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Jobber jobs'), then defines the aggregation ('grouped by status') and output ('counts and totals per status'). This clearly differentiates it from report siblings like revenue_summary or schedule_lookup.

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?

It explicitly clarifies that filtering is by job creation date, not scheduling or completion date, which tells the agent when the date parameters are applicable. However, it does not mention alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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