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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by naming what each returned job contains (status, scheduled time, per-platform permalink or error), which matters for a read tool with no output schema, though it says nothing about scoping, pagination, or history depth.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the resource and its payload, followed by a short fragment for the filter. No waste, but the trailing fragment is clipped enough that its role is ambiguous.

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 usefully sketches the return shape, which is its main contribution. However, for a three-parameter listing tool with 0% schema coverage, it omits meaning for two parameters and says nothing about pagination or ordering, leaving real gaps.

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 0% for all three parameters. The description accounts for 'status' only, and even then without accepted values; 'limit' (bounded 1-100) and 'brandId' (the scoping key) get no explanation anywhere. With zero schema documentation, the description needed to carry this load and does not.

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 carousel/video publish jobs sent to Instagram or TikTok') plus the returned fields, which squarely separates it from sibling list tools like list_carousel_drafts (drafts) and get_video_job_status (single job). An agent can pick this tool without opening any 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?

The only usage note is 'Optional status filter,' which describes a parameter, not when to choose this tool over list_carousel_drafts, list_content_generations, or get_video_job_status. No prerequisites, no when-not condition, no alternative routing.

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