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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context — no pagination, filtering, or result-size behavior — and instead makes an opaque completeness claim ('exact 20/20/20') that the agent cannot verify or act on.

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?

It is a single, reasonably short sentence with no filler padding, which is appropriate in size. However, it front-loads cryptic jargon ('20/20/20 RQM specialist work portfolio') rather than the plain purpose, so the sentence does not fully earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with three undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and an ambiguous description of what is actually returned, the definition is not complete enough for an agent 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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions product, surface, or schema_version. The two enums (product, surface) and the fixed schema_version const are left entirely unexplained, so the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 name and title say 'list buyer jobs', but the description instead promises 'complete agent discovery contracts and readiness for the exact 20/20/20 RQM specialist work portfolio' — a phrase that never names the resource being listed and reads as internal jargon. An agent cannot confidently distinguish this from siblings like search_buyer_jobs or list_capabilities based on this text.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than search_buyer_jobs, list_capabilities, or run_buyer_job, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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