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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a non-obvious side effect: 'May renew and persist expired artifact download links.' This is important because despite the name 'list_tasks' implying a read-only operation, the operation is not guaranteed to be free of persistence effects. The annotation set already indicates readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns with that rather than contradicting it.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, scope, pagination behavior, and a critical side effect without any filler. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple pagination parameters, the connection-scoped resource, the side-effect warning, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. A slightly richer explanation of what qualifies as a 'durable export/report job' or when the renewal side effect occurs would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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%, but the description's mention of 'pagination' gives useful context for the limit and offset parameters. However, it does not explicitly define that limit caps the page size or that offset skips records, so the agent must rely mostly on the parameter names and schema constraints. This is adequate but not compensatory for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('this connection's durable export/report jobs'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_comments or list_projects. The scope qualifier 'this connection's' makes the tool's target unambiguous despite the generic tool name.

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 clearly identifies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs the durable export/report jobs associated with the current connection, with pagination supported. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource scoping is concrete enough to guide selection among the list_* siblings.

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