list_job_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool is read-only via '[tier: readonly-owner]' but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, side effects, or failure modes. The implementation detail 'Maps to GET /jobmaterial.json' adds little behavioral insight. Behavior around pagination (up to 1000 records) is in schema but not in description.

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 brief at two sentences plus a URL and tag. Every part adds some value: purpose, optionality, endpoint mapping, and access tier. However, 'Required on create' is confusing and could be omitted or clarified. Overall, it is reasonably concise and front-loaded with key information.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of job materials with fields) and how to handle pagination beyond the cursor parameter. It only mentions 'quantity records' in an unclear context. The description is incomplete for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool's output and usage patterns.

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 clear definitions for cursor and filter. The description adds the phrase 'optionally filtered', which confirms the filter parameter's optionality but adds no new meaning. The mention of 'Required on create' is unrelated to parameters. Baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting and description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 'List line item (material/labour/service) on a job's quote or invoice', which identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_job_material' (single item) and 'list_materials' (all materials) by specifying the scope. However, 'Required on create: quantity records' is ambiguous and does not clarify the tool's purpose.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional filtering but does not contrast it with search tools or other list operations among the 30+ sibling tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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