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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds behavior beyond that: results are newest-first, pagination is offset-based, and critically the status filter only ranges over the 200 most recent jobs, which would otherwise cause silently incomplete results.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core scope front-loaded and the filter limitation placed immediately after so it is read before the agent commits to a query.

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?

With no output schema, the description still gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly: scope, ordering, pagination and the filter window. It stops short of indicating what a returned job record contains, but that is a minor omission for a straightforward list endpoint.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's restatement of the 200-job filter window duplicates the status parameter description rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 and resource ('List the account's HyperExecute jobs') plus the ordering and pagination model, which cleanly separates it from the many single-job siblings like getHyperExecuteJobInfo and getHyperExecuteJobSessions. It does not explicitly name an alternative for the job-detail use case, but the list scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for browsing jobs rather than inspecting one, and the 'status filter looks at the 200 most recent jobs' caveat is a genuinely useful boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor a pointer to the detail/artifact siblings for drilling into a specific job.

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