get_jobs_and_interim_table

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds useful behavioral traits: 'Makes no FYI changes' reinforces the read-only nature (though redundant) and 'may take minutes' warns about latency, while 'live' indicates data freshness. This exceeds what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and warns about runtime, but with no output schema, it fails to describe the return format or what constitutes 'interim dates and amounts.' Given the moderate complexity of merging two data sources, more context about the output would be expected, though the basic purpose is sufficiently clear.

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 schema has one required parameter, client_id, with no description (coverage 0%). The description does not explain or mention the parameter at all, leaving its meaning and format entirely to inference. Since schema coverage is low, the description was responsible for compensating but did not.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies two resources: 'live FYI jobs' and 'billing-job interim dates and amounts.' This clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_client_jobs_to_invoice or query_client_catalog.

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 implies use when you need live job data plus interim billing information, and warns that it 'may take minutes,' which gives context about the operation's nature. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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