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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: 200 items per page, newest-first ordering, the cursor lifecycle, and the required read scope (auth prerequisite).

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the return shape and pagination contract, with no filler. Every clause corresponds to an operational decision the caller must make.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and paging, ordering, and scope are all covered. The one shortfall is silence on the `origin` filter, meaning an agent may not realize server-side filtering by starter is available.

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 both parameters are self-documenting; the description's restatement of the `before`/nextCursor relationship adds little beyond the schema text. The `origin` filter is not mentioned at all, so no extra meaning is supplied for the one parameter with enumerated choices.

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 jobs') plus what each row carries (liveness and web url), which distinguishes it from jobs_get, jobs_tail and jobs_brief by scope. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 pagination workflow is spelled out clearly (nextCursor → `before`, omit for newest page), but there is no guidance on when to choose this over jobs_get or jobs_tail, nor any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied by the verb 'list' rather than taught.

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