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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is met structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an authorization prerequisite for the organization view and the fact that results include browser links. The trailing "preserve job IDs across chats and reconnects" is more of a conversational nudge than a behavioral property, which keeps this from a 5.

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 filters, then constraints, so an agent can stop reading early. It is dense but every clause carries information; the final sentence about preserving job IDs is the weakest and slightly off-topic.

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?

The output schema covers return values and rich annotations cover safety, so those need not be explained. However, for a 13-parameter listing tool with zero schema descriptions, the text leaves pagination (after/limit), ordering, and several identity filters unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at invocation.

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 0% across 13 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It gestures at filter families ("project and type/status/source/date") but the mapping is loose — "type", "status" and "source" do not literally correspond to kind, state and entry_point — and q, view, after, limit, order, user_id and credential_id are entirely unaddressed.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("List your jobs") and immediately scopes the breadth: "across API keys, MCP connections and Design, without requiring a project." That scope statement effectively separates it from project-bound listing siblings such as list_projects or list_artifacts, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a conditional usage fact ("organization view requires an admin") that tells the agent when a particular mode is available, and implies the tool is the general-purpose job lister. It never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for a narrower listing, and gives no guidance on combining filters.

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