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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the description's job is to add behavioral context beyond that. It does: it discloses the exact row schema, the filter semantics, the default sort, and a non-obvious auth constraint ('mine=true … needs a signed request or the owner session'). This is meaningful context an agent must know before invoking. A 4 rather than 5 because pagination behavior (defaults, max) is only implied.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core scope, which is good. However, it is a single run-on sentence with parenthetical asides and inline schema definitions ('{type, level?, work, id, title, ...}') that make it harder to scan than necessary. It is appropriately sized but less structured than ideal.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no required params, a 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the return row shape, filter behavior, sorting, and the auth caveat for mine. The main omission is explicit pagination semantics (limit/offset defaults and max), which the schema does document, so this is minor.

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 schema already documents each parameter well, making 3 the baseline. The description adds value by explaining the conditional dependency between mine and agent_id/signed requests, and by tying parameter semantics to row types (e.g., 'type "gig", action "offer"'). This exceeds the baseline, warranting a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource framing ('Jobs: everything asking for help, in one list') and then enumerates exactly what types of rows appear: gigs, openings, and campaign roles. This is far more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't directly contrast against a specific sibling like list_tasks, but the enumerated row types make the scope unambiguous.

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?

The description implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('everything asking for help') and contextually maps each row type to a next-step action (make_offer for gigs, message for openings, make_offer+campaign_id for roles), effectively routing to sibling tools. However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use list_board or names a direct alternative, leaving a small gap.

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