Get business context and date reference

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not obligated to restate them. It adds real behavioral value by disclosing that returned dates are resolved in the business's own timezone and week-start convention, and that catalog/jobSources are authoritative inputs for other tools. It does not mention caching or refresh semantics, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It is a single long paragraph, but nearly every clause carries actionable content and the return inventory is front-loaded. The two imperative directives ('Call this FIRST', 'Also call it BEFORE') are slightly buried mid-paragraph rather than leading, which is the only structural flaw.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — and it does so exhaustively, down to the exact list of relative-date keys and their format. Combined with the call-ordering guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and consume its output.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there are no arguments to disambiguate. The description's explanation of returned fields is a bonus rather than a deficit.

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 and resource and then enumerates exactly what it returns: business name, timezone, working hours, catalog, lead sources, and resolved date ranges. An agent can immediately tell this is a foundational context/reference tool rather than a data-mutating sibling like create_job or get_jobs.

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?

Gives explicit, prioritized when-to-use rules: call FIRST for any relative date, call BEFORE creating a job/estimate/line items. It also names the alternative behavior to avoid (computing dates yourself) and routes outputs to specific sibling arguments (dateFrom/dateTo, create_job's source). This is about as prescriptive as usage guidance gets.

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