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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds ordering (newest first) and the recovery behavior (jobs accepted even if response lost), which are valuable beyond annotations. Could be more explicit about scope (only user's own jobs).

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 sentences, each with a clear point: first states primary function, second provides recovery context. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given annotations (safety) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what, ordering, recovery use case. No gaps noted.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No additional context for limit, status, or rd_api_key.

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 the tool lists most recent async jobs, newest first, referencing the API endpoint. It distinguishes itself from get_inference_job by mentioning polling that tool for a single job after recovery, and implies it is not for re-submission.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use as recovery path if submission response lost, avoid re-submitting to prevent double charges, and then poll with get_inference_job. Although it doesn't list all exclusion scenarios, the recovery context is specific and actionable.

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