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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: secret-key-only authentication, jobs:read scope, newest-first ordering, pagination mechanics, and the 400 response for a bad cursor. This gives the agent a strong behavioral model of the call.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then dense with only actionable constraints. Every clause adds value: auth, scope, ordering, pagination, cursor handling, and error behavior. No 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?

For a read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It covers auth, scope, ordering, paging, cursor source, and error semantics. The absense of an output schema is mitigated by the cursor/paging details.

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?

The abstract schema documents limit constraints and status enums in detail, while the description adds practical meaning: limit is the page size, status is optional, and cursor comes from the previous response's next_cursor. It does not restate the enum values, but the abstract schema covers those well.

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 action ('List jobs'), a clear resource (jobs for the tenant), and an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). This separates it from singular get_job and other list_* sibling tools by resource and plural scope.

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 gives clear context: secret key authentication, required scope jobs:read, and paging behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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