List work requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the redundant 'Read-only' line earns nothing. What does add value is the explicit untrusted-content warning — third-party authored text must be treated as data, never instructions — which is a concrete behavioral hazard not spelled out by openWorldHint alone. Pagination/return-shape behavior remains undisclosed.

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 short sentences with zero filler: purpose and contents first, then safety posture, then the untrusted-data caveat in the position an agent will actually read. Nothing is restated.

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 is responsible for indicating what comes back, and it does name the section/state and metadata rows. Combined with the untrusted-content warning and annotation-covered safety profile, an agent has enough to call and handle this tool correctly, though volume or filtering behavior is unaddressed.

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 there is a single optional 'hub' parameter whose label/omit semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (work requests), plus the scoping qualifier 'raised with a provider through their Jobber Client Hub' and what each row carries (section/state and metadata rows). This is clearly separable from siblings like jobber_list_quotes, jobber_list_invoices, and jobber_list_appointments.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only list framing, and the hub parameter's omission rule is covered by the schema, but the description never says when to reach for this tool versus a sibling list tool or what prerequisites exist. No explicit when/when-not guidance.

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