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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the result ordering (newest first) and the fact that the call is free and consumes no credits, which affects agent planning.

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?

Two short sentences, no wasted words, with the scoping ('already unlocked', 'newest first') front-loaded ahead of the cost note. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description supplies scope, ordering and cost, covering everything needed to invoke it correctly; only the 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the next_offset pagination hint. The description adds nothing about limit/offset, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List roles this account already unlocked') plus ordering ('newest first'), which is more precise than the title 'My unlocked jobs'. It implies a distinction from search_jobs and count_jobs, but never names them explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 'Free, and doesn't use credits' note is a useful cost signal that helps an agent prefer this over credit-consuming siblings. However, no alternative tool is named and no condition for choosing it over search_jobs or count_jobs is given, so usage is only implied.

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