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

Annotations already establish the safe/read-only profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: 200-item pages, newest-first ordering, the non-null nextCursor signal, and a required read scope. It stops short of richer detail like rate limits or whether filters affect pagination.

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 tight sentences, with the return shape and pagination rule front-loaded before the scope requirement. No filler or redundant clauses.

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 no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return (liveness, web url, nextCursor) and the paging loop, which is the key missing structured data. It is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter list tool, lacking only filter interaction details for origin.

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 (before, origin) are already documented in the schema, and the description mostly restates the before/nextCursor relationship rather than adding syntax or format detail. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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") and enumerates what each entry carries (liveness, web url), which lets an agent distinguish it from jobs_get at a glance. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with jobs_tail/jobs_brief, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point and that a "read scope" is required. There is no when-not guidance or explicit routing to alternatives such as jobs_get for a single job.

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