List scheduled visits

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.