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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond the word 'List' implying a read operation, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, side effects, or pagination behavior. The schema covers some auth and pagination details, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the core purpose and scope immediately, and nothing needs to be trimmed or rearranged.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It could theoretically mention pagination or auth, but those are covered by the schema. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description is complete enough for use.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including enums, defaults, and deprecated api_key. The description only hints at the status filter ('in any status') and adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (List), resource (jobs), and scope (where you are the contractor, i.e., awarded to you), and explicitly includes any status. This distinguishes it from siblings like available_work (unassigned jobs) and jobs_my_bids (bids you placed). An agent can tell exactly what set of jobs this tool returns.

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 implies the use case (retrieve your awarded jobs) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as available_work or jobs_my_bids. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. Usage is therefore inferable but not guided.

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