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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: pagination cap at offset 10000, OCR status values, that completion is not extraction success, and that no provider/retry/ack/receipt is triggered. It also notes the deprecation and the alias window, which are not in 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?

The description is dense and long, but every sentence carries critical operational information (deprecation, pagination, scopes, OCR semantics). It is front-loaded with the deprecation notice, though the single paragraph could be better structured with lists or separation.

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 complexity (deprecation, sandbox restrictions, pagination, OCR states, scope requirements, rollout notes) and that an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary calling context. It leaves little for an agent to infer incorrectly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It thoroughly explains q (literal AND, NFKC/lowercase normalization, 200-char/12-term limits) and pagination via offset/limit. However, item_id is only implied through the path ':id' and is not explicitly mapped, leaving a small gap.

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 explicitly states the tool lists and searches completed facility-captured scan jobs, and immediately flags it as deprecated in favor of get_inbound_item. It names the verb (list/search) and resource (scan jobs) and distinguishes itself from the replacement sibling.

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 opens with 'Deprecated: use get_inbound_item,' which is an explicit instruction to prefer an alternative. It also clarifies sandbox-only usage, required scopes, and key restrictions, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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