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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is a discovery/read-style operation and that it does not need a human-supplied job id, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is strictly read-only, how filtering behaves, or what default behavior occurs when no parameters are supplied.

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 tightly-worded sentence with no filler. The primary action and key differentiator are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding of the 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?

The output schema and lack of required parameters mean an agent can probably make a basic default call successfully. But the description omits parameter-level guidance and does not clarify how to target failed or reusable jobs beyond the vague wording, so the definition is only partially complete for non-default usage.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at intent categories ('recent, failed, or reusable') without mapping them to the 'intent' parameter. It provides no explanation of 'limit', 'project_id', or 'capability_key', leaving the agent to guess at filtering and pagination behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('project jobs'), and enumerates the kinds of jobs it can retrieve ('recent, failed, or reusable'). It also explicitly contrasts itself with tools that require a job id, which helps an agent distinguish it from hydracept_job_status and hydracept_job_inspect.

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 phrase 'without asking the human for a job id' gives clear guidance for when to choose this tool over id-based job inspection or status tools. It does not name alternative tools explicitly or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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