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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ordering, the optional status filter, and what each job record contains (originating chat, changes, HITL decisions), but is silent on pagination behavior, the authorization requirement, and the compact-mode tradeoff beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before moving to use cases and record contents. Every sentence carries information; only the final sentence about tracked fields is somewhat expendable given an output schema exists.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is optional, and the description still conveys the record contents. For a zero-annotation, four-param list tool it covers purpose, use cases, and ordering, but leaves auth requirements and the relationship to get_job/get_session_jobs unaddressed.

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 75%, near the threshold where the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the sort order ('most recent') and confirms status filtering, but says nothing about limit, compact, or authorization; the compact param is documented only in the schema.

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 ('Returns jobs'), plus ordering ('sorted by most recent') and optional status filtering. This clearly separates it from get_job (single job) and cancel_job, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives three concrete when-to-use scenarios: monitoring chat_async edits, spotting jobs paused for human approval, and auditing completed work. Strong contextual guidance, but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (get_job, get_session_jobs) for narrower lookups.

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