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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses that processing more records costs additional credits, which is a significant behavioral trait. It also clarifies that this operation is a continuation, not a new job, and explains the default behavior when new_limit is omitted. It could mention reversibility or the output shape, but it covers the most critical user-facing consequences.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information: the effect, the cost warning, the applicability condition, and the limit rules. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, applicability, cost implications, and parameter constraints. The main gap is not describing what the response contains, but since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. Overall, an agent has enough context to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between new_limit and the previous limit ('must be greater than the previous limit') and the API default behavior when omitted. It also explains the conceptual purpose of new_limit in the context of extending a job. This goes beyond the schema's rote parameter descriptions.

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 states the action ('Expand a job by processing more records beyond the initial limit'), names the resource (a job), and explains the effect (increases records processed). It also distinguishes itself from general job operations by specifying it only applies to jobs submitted with a limit, which helps differentiate it from siblings like get_job_status or delete_job.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Only use this when the user wants MORE data processed,' states that it only applies to jobs originally submitted with `limit`, and explains when there is nothing to continue ('If a job was submitted without `limit`, there is nothing to continue'). It also gives necessary constraints on new_limit, making the decision to use the tool unambiguous.

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