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 behavioral context: results retain every recorded attempt, and an empty result means 'no stored jobs, not proof none ran' — an interpretation caveat that prevents a real misread of the output.

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 tight sentences, the data scope front-loaded and the empty-result caveat placed where it will be read before acting. No filler, no restated tool name.

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 details need not be described, and the description covers the one output nuance an agent could get wrong (empty ≠ no run). The remaining gap is the lack of sibling differentiation, which matters given how many related job/run tools exist.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does state the key semantics: IDs are numeric and 1–30 may be supplied. It stops short of clarifying ordering, duplicate handling, or whether the array is a filter union, but the essential input meaning is conveyed beyond the bare minItems/maxItems constraints.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('jobs/steps') with an explicit scope of 1–30 numeric run IDs, which is far more precise than the raw name suggests. It does not, however, contrast itself with overlapping siblings such as 9apes_get_job_stats, 9apes_get_run_stats, or 9apes_rank_jobs, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 description states what data is returned ('jobs/steps ... retaining all recorded attempts') but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing despite several siblings operating on the same runs/jobs domain. The agent is left to guess whether this or 9apes_get_job_stats is the right call.

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