Sample Jobber Clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'small sample', implying a non-exhaustive read operation. However, it does not clarify ordering or randomness of the sample, nor any side effects. This is adequate for a simple validation tool but lacks rich detail.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, highly concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose: verb, resource, manner ('small sample'), and context ('for install validation'). No unnecessary 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's simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for a validation use case. It states the purpose and nature of the output. While additional details on return format could be helpful, the tool's low complexity means the description is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. The parameter 'first' is not explained beyond its default and range. The description mentions 'small sample' but does not clarify how 'first' relates to sampling (e.g., first by creation date). This adds minimal value beyond the 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?

The description explicitly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'a small sample of Jobber clients', and specifies the purpose 'for install validation'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which are about authentication (jobber_auth_url, jobber_exchange_code) or full data access (jobber_graphql_read).

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 indicates the specific use case 'for install validation', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context of siblings suggests it is not for full data retrieval or authentication. The guidance is clear for the intended purpose.

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