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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context not in annotations: 'No charge' (cost) and the return shape split between structuredContent and text content for older clients. It still doesn't mention rate limits or auth specifics beyond 'authenticated workspace.'

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with zero waste; the cost note leads. The structuredContent/text-content clause is useful but slightly implementation-leaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still sketches them briefly. Given a simple 2-param read tool, what an agent needs to call it is present; only explicit alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description restates limit's default/maximum (already in the schema as default/maximum/minimum) and repeats the before cursor semantics already documented in the schema. It clarifies the pagination flow but adds little meaning beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 recent jobs in the authenticated workspace') with scope qualifiers. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_letter_status or get_billing_history, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can tell it apart.

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?

Provides pagination guidance ('Pass the last returned job id as before to continue') and scopes to the authenticated workspace, which implies usage. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusions, so the when-to-use criteria are only implied.

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