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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint beyond annotations by stating the result is capped at 20 most recent jobs with status, but it omits ordering guarantees, pagination behavior, or what happens when multiple servers exist.

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 a single front-loaded sentence, leading with the most important scope ('20 most recent') and ending with the included attribute ('status'). It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return shape more than it does. It states that jobs and their status are returned, but does not clarify whether job identifiers, timestamps, or error details are included, which matters because job_output is a likely follow-up tool that would need an id.

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%, and the single optional server parameter is fully described in the schema, including that it is optional when the account has one server. The description's phrase 'on the server' adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 specifies the resource (background jobs), scope (20 most recent on the server), and included attribute (status), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like job_output, start_job, and stop_job. However, it never explicitly names or differentiates against those alternatives, leaving the agent to 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this tool over job_output, start_job, or stop_job. The agent must infer appropriate usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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