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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: 'Failed or interrupted mutations are not automatically replayed,' which tells the agent that job results are durable but retry is not automatic. That is a genuine disclosure not present in the structured fields.

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 short sentences, no waste, with the core read purpose front-loaded and the durability caveat following. Appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers retry/durability semantics, but it leaves open whether jobId selects a single job or filters a list, and documents neither parameter. For a 2-param read tool this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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% for two parameters (jobId, limit), so the description must carry the burden. It says nothing about jobId's role (fetch a specific job vs. list) or the limit/pagination default. The agent gets no semantic help from the description for either parameter.

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 (Read) and resource (durable processing/result jobs) scoped to the authorized workspace. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling, but none of the sibling names clearly overlap with 'jobs', so the purpose is identifiable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no explanation of when to pass jobId versus just listing. The workspace scoping is the only contextual cue; usage must be inferred entirely.

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