List work requests

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' Beyond annotations, it adds scoping ('you have raised') and return contents ('current section (state) and metadata rows'), which provides useful context without contradiction.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler or redundant explanations. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, scope, and what is returned. It does not mention pagination or details about 'metadata rows,' but the annotations and optional parameter make this adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

The single optional parameter 'hub' is fully described in the schema ('Which provider hub to read, by label. Omit when only one is configured.'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists 'work requests you have raised with a provider through their Jobber Client Hub' with their current state and metadata rows. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on work requests instead of appointments, invoices, quotes, or hubs.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use for viewing work requests submitted via a provider hub, but it does not contrast with alternatives or state exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource type.

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