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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description usefully adds that the metadata originates from the app's own jam.metadata() SDK calls, which tells the agent about data provenance. It does not say what happens when no metadata was attached (empty object, null, error), which is the main behavioral gap.

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 zero filler, and the identifying information (SDK-attached custom metadata) is front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which makes it slightly under-specified rather than bloated.

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 read-only, single-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient but omits the return shape (key-value map? nested JSON?) — with no output schema present, that responsibility falls on the description. Adding one line about the response structure would make it 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 jamId, intent, and llm_model are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that — for example, it does not clarify accepted jamId forms or behavior for cross-workspace IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 the specific resource — custom metadata attached by the app via the jam.metadata() SDK — with concrete examples (user IDs, versions, feature flags). However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, so what the tool *does* (returns/reads this metadata for a jam) must be inferred from the name. It is distinguishable from siblings like getDetails or getEvents only by the resource examples, not by explicit contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to pick this over getDetails, getEvents, or getUserEvents, and no prerequisites are stated. The mention of the SDK origin hints at the data's source but does not help an agent decide when to call it.

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