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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns current status and specific fields, and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential pagination, large result size, or any other behavioral caveats that might affect an agent's expectations.

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?

The description is two clear, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. It efficiently states what the tool does and what it returns, earning every word.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It enumerates the returned fields (job IDs, employers, agents, payouts, status, vote counts), which helps the agent understand the output. However, it could be more complete by noting any rate limits or whether the list is paginated, though this is not critical for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage by default. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool lists all jobs on the AGI Alpha job board with their current status, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_job by explicitly stating 'all jobs' rather than 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?

The description implies the tool is used when you need an overview of all jobs, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives like get_job for specific job details. There is clear context but no exclusions.

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