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 behavior context beyond annotations: it discloses the data scope ('this account hid or disliked') and the ordering ('newest first'), and hints at the restore workflow. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core resource and scope before adding ordering and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent list operation, the description is complete. An agent knows exactly what will be returned (hidden/disliked jobs), the order, and the motivating use case. The sibling unhide_job covers the restoration action, so no additional context 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource — jobs this account hid or disliked — and specifies ordering (newest first). It also conveys the purpose of the operation, enabling a job to be put back, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like unhide_job and list_matching_jobs. The verb 'list' is carried by the tool name, and the description adds scoping detail beyond the title.

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 'so one can be put back' clearly indicates the intended use case: reviewing hidden/disliked jobs in order to restore one. This implicitly routes an agent away from list_matching_jobs and toward unhide_job as the companion action. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but with zero parameters and a clear purpose, the guidance is sufficient.

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