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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe read-only nature. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: jobs are retained only 24 hours after last activity, results are ordered newest first, and status is included. It does not discuss pagination or result-size limits, but for a simple list tool this is solid added value.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then packs in the retention rule, ordering, and returned field. Zero wasted words.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed, retention window, order, and status. It does not explain pagination or help distinguish from get_job, but there is no output schema requiring that.

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 100%, so the single robot_key parameter is fully documented by the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource ('Your jobs') and specifies scope ('still exist'), ordering ('newest first'), and included fields ('with their status'), so an agent can tell it retrieves a collection rather than a single job. However, it does not name the sibling tool get_job or otherwise explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives like get_job for fetching a single job. The retention note ('jobs are deleted 24 hours after the last activity') explains data lifetime but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over siblings.

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