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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: baseline imports are excluded, history is capped at 90 days, and cursors expire. That retention/expiry detail is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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 clauses, all load-bearing: scope of returned changes, cursor persistence instruction, and retention/expiry caveat. Fully front-loaded with no filler.

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 an output schema present, return-value structure needs no prose, and the description covers the two parameters, retention, and polling mechanics. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only sibling routing is left implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: that the cursor represents a point in a 90-day window and that expiry forces a fresh start. This complements the schema's '0 starts from the beginning' note rather than repeating it.

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 ('Get') and enumerates exactly what is returned: new, updated, reopened, and closed jobs. This is enough to distinguish it as a change-feed tool from list_my_jobs or search_jobs, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 clear operational context: it is a polling tool ('Save next_cursor for the next check') and states that expired cursors require a fresh search, which is a real usage condition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the restart case.

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