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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys that the tool returns jobs and can filter by state, which is sufficient for this simple read operation. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when no state is provided, whether it returns all jobs, or any ordering/pagination details.

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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences, each carrying essential information. The action ('Returns the jobs posted') is front-loaded, and the filter behavior is stated in the second sentence with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple list operation with one optional parameter, this is mostly sufficient. However, the description does not explain what happens when 'state' is omitted (e.g., does it return all jobs or default to one state?), and there is no mention of the response shape beyond 'jobs posted.' Without output schema or annotations, this missing default behavior is a notable gap.

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 input schema already documents the 'state' parameter and its allowed values. The description only restates this ('state filters to open, held or delivered') without adding extra meaning like default behavior or whether the parameter is required.

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 clear verb-plus-resource structure: 'Returns the jobs posted.' It also explains the state parameter's purpose. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling job tools like job_claim or job_deliver, but 'list' is clearly a read operation, which separates it from those mutations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling jobs tools. The description implies a read-only listing operation, but it never explicitly says 'use this to view jobs before claiming or delivering,' nor does it explain when to use it instead of job_post or job_deliver.

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