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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new behavioral facts: results are owner-scoped (an authorization boundary the annotations don't express), and collections are continued by passing page.nextCursor back unchanged. It doesn't mention ordering, defaults, or what a job record contains, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then scope, then pagination. No filler, no restatement of the title, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return values, and 75% schema description coverage, the description only needs to add scope and collection semantics, which it does. Minor gaps remain: no indication of result ordering or default page size, which matter for a paged 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents mode requirements, the where filter fields, and syncJobId. The description's mode/filter wording largely restates that. The one additive element is the instruction to keep page.nextCursor unchanged when continuing a collection, which explains cursor semantics the schema only types but does not operationalize.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read synchronization jobs') and enumerates the three access patterns: by ID, list, and filtered query. An agent can immediately tell this is a read tool over sync jobs. It stops short of naming any sibling tool it is distinguished from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 maps naturally onto the three modes ('by ID, list jobs, or filter by connection and/or status'), which implicitly tells the agent which call shape to use. However, it never states when not to use this tool, what the alternative would be, or any prerequisite (e.g., needing a connectionId before filtering). Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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