requests_inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to disclose those. It adds the 'new' and 'unscheduled' scoping, which gives some behavioral framing. However, it does not mention that the tool returns two separate lists (new_requests and unscheduled_requests) or that pagination requires cursors, both of which are implied by the schema parameters. This goes slightly beyond annotations and adds a high-level scope, but leaves an agent inferring the dual-section output.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and key qualifiers ('new and unscheduled') and is quotable in a tool list. It says exactly what the tool does without wasting tokens.

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?

This tool has 5 parameters, a two-section output (evident from the schema), and no output schema. The description does not tell the agent about the pagination fields, that two sections are returned, or how to interpret next_cursor. It only says 'return new and unscheduled' which is too terse for a legitimate agented invoker to correctly handle pagination without reading the schema and guessing. For paginated tools, the absence of return-shape or pagination notes is a substantial 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters already have precise semantics (cursor paths, 'echo back' requirements, page_size limits). The description adds no information about parameters; it merely names the resource categories. At 100% coverage the baseline is 3, and the description neither raises nor lowers it.

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 ('Return') and scope ('new and unscheduled Jobber requests'), which clearly suggests a read-only request inbox. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_records' or 'schedule_lookup', but the resource and 'unscheduled' qualifier make the purpose evident enough without opening the schema.

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 is given about when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description is purely a statement of functionality with no context on filtering, period, or comparisons to siblings such as 'jobs_summary' or 'schedule_lookup'. An agent cannot tell if this is the right high-level entry point or if another tool would be more appropriate for e.g. all jobs or revenue queries.

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