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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default filter state (In progress), the overdue ordering rule (oldest due date first), and the Cotlet API key auth requirement.

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 purpose, then filters, then the overdue special case, then auth. Slightly redundant in restating in-progress/archived twice, but otherwise every sentence carries information.

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 9-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers default state, filtering dimensions, ordering, and auth. Pagination via cursor is left to the schema, which documents it, so the coverage is nearly complete.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it names the filterable dimensions (pipeline, stage, assignee, account, priority) and explains that overdue returns only past-due jobs sorted oldest-first, which is more than the schema's bare 'true: only jobs past their due date'.

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 (Lists) and resource (jobs), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like get_job, create_job and archive_job by covering the collection and both in-progress and archived tabs. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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 clear usage context: it lists jobs the way Workflow > Jobs does, defaulting to In progress unless archived is set, and narrows with filters. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings (e.g. get_job for a single job) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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