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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are scoped to the signed-in user and client contact details and full addresses are redacted unless the clients:read scope is granted, which tells the agent to expect partial records. It stops short of describing pagination or default ordering.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (scope to the signed-in user) is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the permission caveat covers the main surprise an agent would hit. However, with two undocumented parameters and no guidance on status filtering, the definition is only minimally complete for a filtered-list tool.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to do so: neither "limit" (default 25) nor "status" is mentioned, and no valid status values are given. The agent learns nothing about filtering or page size beyond the bare schema types.

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?

"Lists the signed-in user's jobs" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (jobs) plus a clear scope (signed-in user), which distinguishes it from singular siblings like get_job. It does not explicitly contrast with list_invoices or list_job_files, but the resource noun makes the target 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "list" – there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_job or the other list_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer it is the enumeration entry point, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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