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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the return envelope {items, page, page_size, has_more}, the paging loop condition, and the 7-day expiry of API-originated results with a retention warning. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it stops short of stating rate limits or ordering guarantees.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct payload: purpose/scope, return shape plus paging rule, retention caveat, and sibling handoff. No filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded.

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 compensates by naming the return fields and the has_more paging contract, and it flags the data-loss risk of expired API results. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and iterate 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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including the search-term semantics and the api 7-day window. The description only summarizes the filter categories (type, source, search, date range) without adding syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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 your generation history across the API and the web app") plus the filterable dimensions, which immediately distinguishes it from listApiJobs and getApiJob. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away with "For an in-flight job's status use getApiJob instead," and the source enum explanation clarifies when to scope to api vs web vs all. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use are stated.

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