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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it scopes results to the authenticated workspace, limits data to safe summary fields, and explicitly lists excluded fields. This is meaningful disclosure not present in the structured data.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the key scoping constraint ('safe summary fields only') and a concrete exclusion list. Every phrase earns its place.

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 search tool with seven optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description covers purpose, auth scope, and return-data boundaries. It does not enumerate the exact safe summary fields or describe pagination/ordering, but the exclusions and annotations provide enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all seven parameters with their meanings and constraints. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but that is unnecessary here; a baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states a specific action ('Searches the authenticated workspace jobs') and a precise resource, and it differentiates the tool from job-detail siblings by explicitly noting it returns only safe summary fields and excludes service addresses, notes, and amounts. This makes the tool's scope immediately understandable without opening the 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-job or jobs-today. Although the exclusion of addresses, notes, and amounts implies it is not for full detail retrieval, there is no stated preference, prerequisite, or alternative routing.

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