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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe; the description adds the useful scope constraint that results are restricted to jobs involving the current user as buyer or seller. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or status value behavior, but that is a minor gap for a read-only list.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler; the scope and optional filtering are front-loaded. It is concise, though at the cost of parameter details.

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 simple optional-parameter list with a read-only annotation, the core behavior is clear, but the missing status semantics, return-shape information, and absence of any usage distinctions leave noticeable gaps. An agent could call it safely with no parameters, but could not confidently use filters.

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 does not compensate: 'optionally filtered' is too generic to explain the role, limit, or status parameters. The role enum is self-evident from the schema, but status has no allowed values and limit has no semantics in the description.

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 exactly which objects are returned ('jobs') and the scope ('where I am buyer or seller'), plus optional filtering. This differentiates it from single-job tools like get_job and creation tools like create_job, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison with siblings such as get_job, my_listings, or opportunities. The title 'My jobs' and buyer/seller scope imply it is for the current user's job involvement, but there are no alternative conditions or exclusions.

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