List job types, sources, and price catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so an agent knows the safety and repeat-call profile without the description. The description usefully conveys that these are static lookup tables, but adds nothing on auth, caching, or the shape/size of results, so with the annotation bar already lowered this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences: what it returns first, when to use it second. Every clause carries information (the three table names, the three use cases) and there is no filler or repetition.

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 lookup tool with full annotation coverage, a 100%-documented schema, and no output schema required to be explained, the definition covers purpose, contents, and triggers. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the returned record shape (id/name pairs), which an agent might reasonably want before calling it.

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%, so all three parameters (types, search, includeArchived) are already documented in detail, including the unusual 'catalog marked incomplete' workflow for search. The description's 'map IDs to names' hints at a use for types but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Fetch lookup tables') and enumerates exactly what is returned: job types, job sources, catalog items. This cleanly separates it from sibling data-retrieval tools like get_jobs, get_customers and get_business_context, which return transactional or business records rather than reference data.

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 gives concrete trigger conditions: knowing what types/sources exist, catalog pricing, or mapping IDs to names. That is clear context for selecting the tool, but it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer get_business_context for catalog-is-incomplete situations), so it stops short of 'when-not' guidance.

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