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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: visibility differs by auth mode, and API tokens see org-wide jobs including human-started ones. It does not address ordering or pagination semantics, but the schema covers defaults.

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 sentences, zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the visibility nuance follows as supporting context.

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?

For a filtered list tool with full schema coverage, no required params, and a read-only annotation, the description supplies the key missing piece (visibility scope). Return shape is not explained, but no output schema exists and list semantics are conventional; ordering could be mentioned but is minor.

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%, so limit, offset, and toolSlug are already documented with defaults and ranges. The description repeats the tool-slug filter concept without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema. 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?

Specific verb (list) + resource (jobs) + scope (jobs the caller can access), with the optional tool-slug filter named. It is clearly distinguishable from get_job, which retrieves a single job.

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?

Explains when the scope applies (API token vs signed-in user) and that filtering by tool slug is optional. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_job for a single job or pagination-based iteration, but the context for use is clear.

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