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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as listing recent jobs and status, but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'recent' means. For a safe read-only tool, this is minimal.

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 concise, consisting of one clear sentence and a short fragment. It is front-loaded with the main verb 'List' and the object. Every part adds value, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and why to use it. It lacks details like ordering or limits, but the completeness is sufficient for a basic list tool.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (0 parameters, 100% coverage). With zero parameters, the description adds meaning by specifying that the list is 'recent' and includes 'status', and clarifies the purpose. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 it lists recent Reverse Source scan jobs with status, and explicitly mentions the purpose is to find a job_id for fetching results. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_reverse_source_status (which likely gets status of a specific job) and start_reverse_source_scan (which starts a scan).

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 description provides a clear use case ('Call to find a job_id whose results to fetch'), implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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