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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns job history with IDs, queries, statuses, and timestamps, and scopes results to jobs 'submitted by you.' However, it fails to mention that the 'ownership' parameter can broaden results to all or shared jobs, which could mislead the agent about default behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by return-value details. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 exists and covers return values, and the description provides the essential purpose and scope. For a list tool with seven optional parameters, the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking, though it could better differentiate from sibling list tools like list_monitor_jobs.

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% and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear action ('List') and resource ('all jobs submitted by you'), which distinguishes it from single-job tools like get_job_status. However, the optional 'ownership' parameter allowing 'all' or 'shared' filters introduces ambiguity about whether the tool only shows self-submitted jobs, slightly weakening the clarity.

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 usage (viewing your job history) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_monitor_jobs. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, so the agent must infer appropriate use from the purpose statement.

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