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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: ordering (most recent first), the web-app exclusion, and that it consumes no credits. It stops short of describing the shape of a returned job record.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with scope and the web-app exclusion before the filtering details. The final sentence largely duplicates schema content, so it is efficient but not waste-free.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers ordering, scope, cost, and filtering behavior — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only omission, the exact job record fields, is discoverable by following up with getApiJob.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the limit default/cap and the comma-separated status syntax, which reinforces but does not extend the schema (e.g., no note on whether unknown statuses error or are ignored).

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 and resource ('List the generation jobs') plus the exact scope: jobs started through the API or MCP, most recent first, explicitly excluding web-app jobs. That scope statement cleanly separates it from siblings like getApiJob (single job) and listGenerations.

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?

Gives clear context on when this tool applies — you want the jobs you submitted via the API/MCP — and rules out web-app jobs. It does not name getApiJob as the alternative when you need details on one job, so the routing guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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