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

Annotations already mark it read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: it conditionally fetches the appointments page only if a hub is configured, and it reports failure layer plus remediation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, two sentences, with the primary function front-loaded and the behavioral caveat followed by the outcome. Every sentence adds information and there is no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs: the resource checked, the conditional hub behavior, and the kind of output ('which layer failed and what to do about it'). It could be slightly more explicit about return shape, but it is sufficient for a zero-parameter healthcheck.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not a burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 clearly names the exact resource ('fetchproxy browser bridge') and the specific action ('Checks'), and mentions the optional hub appointments page. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data-listing and page-reading 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?

The intended diagnostic purpose is clear from 'Checks' and 'Reports which layer failed', so an agent can infer it is for connectivity verification. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context: visits are grouped Today/Upcoming/Past, and 'time' is null when the provider chooses not to show times. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loads the resource and grouping, and includes useful field-level context. The final 'Read-only' sentence is slightly redundant with the annotation but does not meaningfully hurt clarity.

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 list operation with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it names the source, grouping, fields, and null semantics. There is no output schema, and the field listing in the description sufficiently sets expectations.

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% and the only parameter, 'hub', is clearly explained. The description connects the tool to the hub concept but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 and resource ('list scheduled visits'), names the source (provider's Jobber Client Hub), and details the grouping and field set. This is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like jobber_list_invoices or jobber_list_quotes.

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?

The description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving scheduled visits, and sibling names make the resource distinction obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds important behavioral details beyond that: hub ids are never returned because they are credentials, and each business has its own hub with no combined view. This is consistent with annotations and provides security-relevant context.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: what it lists, scope limitations, and security behavior. The first sentence could be more active ('Lists...') but the structure is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers what is returned (labels, default), what is never returned (hub ids), and scope boundaries. It is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty input schema, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not attempt to.

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 clearly states the tool lists provider hubs configured for this server, by label, and identifies the default. It differentiates from siblings that operate on appointments, invoices, quotes, and work requests, and explicitly excludes returning hub ids.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving hub configuration but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about no combined view across providers provides a contextual constraint, but no named alternative or explicit 'use this when' is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: each invoice carries its number, subject, list section, and raw provider metadata in `details`, and it explains that amounts/dates are kept raw because row presence depends on invoice state. This materially helps an agent understand the returned data without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the resource, the second explains the returned fields and the nuance around `details`, and the third reinforces read-only behavior. Each sentence carries information needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 no output schema, the description properly explains the return shape: number, subject, list section, and raw metadata rows in `details`. The optional `hub` parameter is covered by the schema, and safety is covered by annotations plus the explicit read-only note. A minor gap is that it does not clarify pagination or whether the list is exhaustive despite openWorldHint, but the description is otherwise complete for a simple list tool.

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 only parameter, `hub`, is fully described in the schema ('Which provider hub to read, by label. Omit when only one is configured.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, which lands at the baseline of 3.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Invoices a provider has sent through Jobber.' It also names the resource type ('invoices') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobber_list_appointments and jobber_list_quotes. An agent can immediately tell what this tool lists.

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?

The description gives clear context: it is for reading invoices a provider has sent, and it explicitly says 'Read-only; this cannot pay anything,' which rules out payment tasks. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the resource-specific framing makes the intended use clear.

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

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

With annotations already marking the operation as read-only and idempotent, the description adds meaningful extra context: the data returned includes approval state and raw metadata rows, and quote approval is intentionally unsupported. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: one describes the output contents and one clarifies the read-only boundary. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 list operation with one optional parameter, the description covers what the tool returns and its read-only nature. There is no output schema, but the field-level summary sufficiently informs an agent about the result shape; pagination or ordering details are not essential here.

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%, and the only parameter, hub, is already described clearly in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (list) and resource (quotes sent through Jobber), and adds useful output details like number, subject, section, and raw metadata rows. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but the resource type is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is for viewing quotes and explicitly notes that approving a quote is not possible, which is a useful limitation. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like jobber_list_invoices or jobber_list_appointments.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it scopes results to requests the user raised via a provider hub and indicates that each result includes its current section/state and metadata rows. This adds meaning without contradicting annotations.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence plus a 'Read-only' tag. There is no filler or repetition beyond the annotation-backed read-only note, and every phrase adds scope or content detail.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description adequately explains which records are returned and what fields they carry. It could mention ordering or pagination, but given the low complexity this is nearly complete.

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 single parameter 'hub' is already fully documented in the schema with 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. It reinforces the Client Hub context, but it adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('list'), a specific resource ('work requests'), and the exact scope ('you have raised with a provider through their Jobber Client Hub'). It also previews the returned content ('current section (state) and metadata rows'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling list tools such as jobber_list_appointments and jobber_list_invoices.

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?

The description establishes clear context: this tool is for work requests raised by the caller through a provider's Client Hub, not for other Jobber record types. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the resource and scope make the correct choice obvious among the sibling list tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces read-only without contradicting them. It adds context that the tool returns readable text and is suited for schema-less pages, which goes beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core purpose is stated first and the usage guidance second. Every clause earns its place, and the example paths are concrete and illustrative.

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 read-only page fetcher with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and what it returns. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear statement that it returns readable text, and the annotations cover safety.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with examples and coverage at 100%, so the description adds little new semantic meaning. The description reinforces the path pattern with examples but does not go beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 clearly states the tool fetches any Client Hub page and returns its readable text, with concrete examples of detail page paths. This distinguishes it from the sibling list tools, which operate on specific entity types with pinned schemas.

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 instructs to use this tool for detail pages without pinned schema and when a list tool returns nothing, providing clear decision criteria relative to the sibling list tools. No exclusions are needed because the alternatives are implicit from the sibling names.

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