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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds real behavior context: the returned 'params' is a JSON Schema that must be used to fill canvas_action, and action sets vary per job. It stays silent on pagination or failure modes, but for a small read-only lookup that is a minor 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?

One dense sentence of output shape followed by the parameter note and the routing instruction, all front-loaded with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload, the required input, and the handoff to canvas_action. The only omission is clarifying what the slug refers to, which the sibling tools imply but never state.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning; it states 'slug is required' but adds nothing about what the slug identifies (the job/template) or its format. This only partially compensates for the empty schema, leaving the meaning of the one input to inference.

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+resource ('list the actions this job can do') and enumerates the returned fields (id/title/description/cost/credits/anonymous/job/params), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also implicitly separates itself from canvas_action, which executes actions rather than listing them.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this before canvas_action and warns against guessing action names because action sets differ per job template. That is a concrete when-to-use plus a when-not-to-do-something-else rule naming the sibling.

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