List work orders

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the default sort ('newest first'), the enumerable status values (Open, Estimating, Submitted, Approved, Canceled, Completed), and the returned field list in the absence of an output schema. It omits pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter, which is the main remaining gap.

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 opening fragment 'Work orders with project, customer, status, dates, total and assignee.' is immediately restated in fuller form by the next sentence, which is pure repetition. The substantive content is front-loaded and short, but that duplicated first line does not earn its place.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, status values and sort order. Only pagination/limit-default behavior is missing, which is a minor gap for a read-only list tool whose safety profile is already declared in annotations.

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 coverage is 75% (cursor and search already documented in-schema), and limit documents its 1-100 range/default. The description only restates the project and search filters without adding syntax, matching rules, or pagination semantics, so it performs at the baseline for a well-annotated schema.

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 ('Reads the Contractor Foreman Work Orders list') and resource, plus the exact field set returned, so an agent knows this is the plural/collection counterpart to get_work_order. It stops short of naming get_work_order explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'Filter by project or search' implies the two narrowing modes, and 'newest first' implies when the default ordering suffices. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_work_order for a single record, and no exclusions or prerequisite notes.

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