List scheduled visits

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses output grouping, the included fields, and the null behavior for time when the provider chooses not to show times. This adds valuable context about what the agent should expect from the response.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that each add meaningful content: what the tool does, what data is returned, and a specific edge case. No filler or redundancy.

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 does a good job explaining the return values (grouped visits, fields, null time). It lacks some details like pagination or whether all visits are returned, but for a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, it is largely 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 schema description covers the single 'hub' parameter fully (100% coverage), including its optionality. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient guidance, so a baseline 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 tool lists scheduled visits from a provider's Jobber Client Hub, grouping them into Today/Upcoming/Past. This uses a specific verb and resource, and the grouping detail distinguishes it from sibling tools that list invoices, quotes, and work requests.

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 provides clear context on what the tool returns (scheduled visits) and how they are organized, making it obvious when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that no added guidance is necessary.

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