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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: jobs disappear within 24 hours of creation and results are newest-first. It does not mention result size limits or pagination, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One compact sentence with the scoping constraint front-loaded and the retention caveat in a parenthetical. Every clause (existence, retention window, ordering, status field) carries information an agent needs.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema, read-only), and the description covers scope, ordering, and the fields returned, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the absence of any mention of result count or pagination leaves a small gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the note that robot_key is required to read or start jobs, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the word "Your", which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 resource and scope ("Your jobs that still exist"), plus ordering (newest first) and returned field (status). It clearly reads as a plural list operation, distinguishing it implicitly from the singular get_job sibling, but never names or contrasts with that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent must infer that this is the polling/discovery call and that get_job is for a specific job. The 24-hour retention note hints at why a job may be missing, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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