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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses non-obvious durability behavior: a job may be accepted even if the response was lost, and listing it here is the safe way to recover it without re-submitting. This adds real value beyond readOnly/idempotent hints and has no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, purpose-driven sentences followed by a useful recovery note. Every sentence contributes: the first defines the operation, the second explains why an agent might need this tool, and the sibling pointer adds actional guidance.

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 an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, recovery behavior, and the next-step sibling. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for limit, status, and rd_api_key. The description itself adds little parameter-specific meaning besides confirming the list is reverse-chronological, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List your most recent async jobs, newest first', and includes the exact endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_inference_job by positioning it as the polling tool to use after this listing.

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 an explicit recovery path: when a submission response is lost before task_id arrives, use this tool instead of re-submitting to avoid double charges. It also names get_inference_job as the next step, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool for single-job lookups.

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