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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: free to call, no authentication required, never raises, returns an empty list when no jobs exist, and returns nothing for values below 1. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and none are duplicated from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into short labeled lines for returns, behavior, parameters, and usage. Every line carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers purpose, cost/auth, failure behavior, empty-result behavior, parameter edge cases, and the follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the limit parameter is already documented with its default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an edge-case rule not in the schema ('values below 1 return nothing'), which is real added meaning, though it does not restate the default or upper bounds.

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 the most recent jobs') plus the ordering ('newest first'), and the 'When to use' line explicitly separates it from get_job_status, which is the natural sibling for single-job lookups.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('to discover job keys, then pass one to get_job_status') and names the follow-up tool, so the agent knows both when to call this and what to do with the result. No exclusions are needed for a discovery tool of this kind.

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