msio_uninvoiced_jobs

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by disclosing the default date range (today CT), that the date filter uses scheduled date rather than completion date, and that $0 jobs are still flagged. These are valuable behavioral caveats not visible in annotations or schema.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses concise labeled sections for usage and gotchas. There is no filler; each line adds operational value.

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?

With an output schema present and safety annotations provided, the description covers the most important invocation details: when to use, when not to use, and behavioral gotchas. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly explain the remaining filter parameters, though their names are reasonably self-explanatory.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for date_range parameters by stating the default and filter behavior, and for minimum_job_value via the $0 jobs gotcha. However, assigned_employee_id is left entirely to inference and minimum_job_value semantics are only partially disclosed.

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 object: 'Detect completed jobs with no invoice' and ties it to the business goal of unbilled revenue. It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly directing away from job details and invoice details tools.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE WHEN' scenarios including end-of-day checks and revenue leakage, and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' guidance with specific alternative tools. This leaves no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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