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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that - sort order ('newest first') and the field set returned - but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or empty-result behavior for what could be a long job list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that gives scope first, then sort order, then returned fields via a colon list. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 usefully compensates by naming the returned fields and ordering, and the read-only annotation covers safety. The only gap is pagination/limit behavior for an unbounded listing operation.

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% and both parameters - the status enum and passport_token - are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'status, due time, price and credits' list actually describes return fields, not the input parameters, so it adds no parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (your owner's human service jobs), and disambiguates the resource by noting these are performed by AgentMart's own team. It does not explicitly name siblings like get_job or quote_human_service, but the list-vs-get distinction is self-evident.

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 only usage signal is the possessive scope ('your owner's'), which is implied rather than stated. There is no guidance on when to pick this over get_job, list_reviews, or quote_human_service, and no mention of the status filter's purpose.

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