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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states this is a 'free read-only lookup (no credits, no generation),' which is critical safety information, and adds ordering, default limit/cap, API key requirement, and source scope. It does not describe the response shape or what happens when more than 100 jobs exist, but the disclosed behavior is far stronger than typical.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides scope, safety, filtering, and auth context in four additional short sentences. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, though the filtering and limit default/cap sentences overlap with schema descriptions, creating slight redundancy.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs before invocation: source scope, ordering, cost/safety, authentication, filter format, default limit, and cap. The only minor omission is pagination beyond the cap, but the tool name, schema, and sibling context make the expected behavior clear enough.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description repeats the limit default/cap and mentions comma-separated status filtering, but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and a clearly bounded resource: 'generation jobs you started through the API or MCP.' It also adds a scope constraint ('Web-app jobs are not included') and an ordering guarantee ('most recent first'), which differentiates it from broader listing tools like listGenerations without needing to name them.

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 clear context and an explicit exclusion: 'Web-app jobs are not included,' so an agent knows not to use this tool for web-app jobs. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires an API key (user scope)') and describes filtering and limit behavior. It stops short of naming alternative tools such as getApiJob or cancelApiJob, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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