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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that there are no accounts and that a missing management_token falls back to the Authorization header. It does not disclose what happens when one token in the batch is invalid (whole-call failure vs. per-job error), which is the main unstated trait of a batched read.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the result and followed by the calling mechanics; nothing is padded. The trailing REST endpoint note is mildly redundant with the endpoint bar but does not bloat the text.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry the burden of describing what comes back, but it only says "Status of every job" without indicating fields, ordering, or how per-job failures are represented. It covers the inputs and auth adequately, leaving the return contract thin for a batched read.

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?

There is effectively one top-level parameter whose item fields are already documented in the schema (job_id as job_<ULID> from create_job, management_token as act_mt_… with the header fallback). The description's "up to 20" and header fallback largely restate maxItems and the schema text, adding little new meaning beyond the auth framing.

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?

"Status of every job you hold a management token for" states the resource and the read intent, and the batching mechanism (one pair per job, up to 20) makes clear this is a multi-job fetch rather than a single lookup. It never names the singular sibling get_job, so an agent must infer the batch-vs-single distinction from the parameter shape alone.

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 explains the authentication model ("There are no accounts", per-pair tokens, Authorization header fallback), which is genuine usage context for calling it correctly. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs. get_job/get_stats guidance and no exclusions, so routing between the list and single-job siblings remains implied.

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