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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description restates read-only as a confirmation rather than a contradiction. It adds ordering semantics (newest first) and, with no output schema present, describes row shape (artifact names per job). It does not mention pagination or the page-scoped nature of some filters, which the schema covers instead.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then usage cases, then row shape and the cross-reference. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical kind list is the only slightly bloated part.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies ordering, row contents, and the escalation path to full results, which is what an agent needs to act. Remaining gaps are cursor/pagination behavior and the page-scoped caveat on session_id filtering, both of which live in the schema.

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 80%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description only gestures at filtering via the kind list, which even mixes registry names with short aliases ("generate", "stems", "session") rather than the schema's names, and says nothing about limit, before, or status.

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 the jobs this account submitted") and enumerates the job kinds covered, including analyses. It explicitly contrasts itself with doseedo_check_task, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives three concrete situations to call this tool (finding an earlier result, checking what is running, resuming after a lost connection) and names the alternative for full details ({job_id} via doseedo_check_task). Nothing is left to inference.

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