List job line items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds intent framing but nothing about return shape, pagination behavior, or size of payloads, so it earns only a modest amount of extra credit.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the purpose leads and the use-case list follows. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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?

For a read-only list tool with five schema-documented parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It leaves minor gaps around result volume or ordering, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, with each of the five parameters documented including enum values and defaults, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) plus the resource (line items from jobs) and even clarifies the domain meaning with '(services/products sold)'. This makes the concept concrete, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling add_line_items or get_jobs, so the differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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 second sentence lists concrete analytical use cases ('which items make money, most popular services, item profitability, catalog usage'), giving an agent clear context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming exclusions or an alternative sibling, so no when-not guidance is provided.

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