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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits. The description adds meaningful output behavior beyond annotations: results are ordered newest first and history rows omit frame URLs. It does not mention pagination behavior or auth nuances, but the schema covers those.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The ordering constraint is front-loaded and the sibling routing is placed immediately after the key output limitation, making it easy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return shapes; it still discloses the critical output limitation (no frame URLs in history rows). Annotations cover safety and schema covers all parameters, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (skip, limit, status, api_key) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (caller's jobs) with ordering ('newest first'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling getvideoframes_get_job by noting history rows lack frame URLs. An agent can distinguish this from get_job 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?

Provides clear routing guidance: use this to list jobs, and call getvideoframes_get_job when frame URLs are needed. However, it does not state broader when-to-use context (e.g., monitoring progress, checking status) or any exclusions beyond the frame URL case.

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