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 behavioral facts: results are capped at 20, ordered by recency, and scoped by job kind plus optional website narrowing. It doesn't mention ordering guarantees or what happens with fewer than 20 matches, but the added context is useful.

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 scope and followed by the filtering nuance, with no filler. The parenthetical example interrupts the flow slightly, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the read-only annotations cover safety. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving project_id and the enum semantics unstated means an agent must inspect the schema to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains website_id well and implies job_kind is a category selector via 'of a kind' and 'the setup and scraping jobs'. project_id is never explained, and the enum values are only implicit, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the 20 newest jobs of a kind in a project'), which is clearly distinguishable from the singular scout_get_job and from scout_list_projects/scout_list_websites by scope. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top tier, but an agent can tell what it does at a glance.

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?

It provides a concrete motivating use case ('e.g. to find the id of a matching job') and states the effect of the optional website_id ('limits the setup and scraping jobs to one website'). That's enough for an agent to know when this is the right call, though there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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