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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the 'Risco: read · Efeitos: Nenhum' line merely restates them in another language. The only added nugget is 'recentes', which is never defined — no ordering, no window, no pagination or result-cap behavior.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, which is fine, but a full sentence is spent restating annotation data (scope/risk/effects) instead of explaining the resource or its filters.

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?

A list tool with three undocumented filters, no output schema, and ambiguous resource naming. An agent cannot tell what it will receive or how to narrow results, so the definition is not complete enough to call confidently.

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?

All three parameters (kind, limit, state) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description compensates for none of them. 'Recentes' loosely gestures at ordering and the limit default of 20, but the meaning of kind and state values is left entirely undocumented.

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?

It says the tool returns 'recent jobs of the operation', but 'jobs' is undefined — background jobs, sync jobs, or maintenance jobs? Siblings get_job, cancel_job, and especially list_sync_jobs are not distinguished, so an agent has to guess whether this is the generic or sync-specific lister.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The description never mentions that list_sync_jobs exists, nor when filtering by kind or state would be appropriate.

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