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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is 'anonymous', lists only 'approved' jobs, and explicitly states it does not apply/hire/move money. This enriches the behavioral profile without contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance and exclusions are packed efficiently. Every word adds value.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and safe read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, how to filter, and what it doesn't do. It could mention that results are a list of job objects, but that's implied. Overall adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains worker_type semantics by naming the filter categories (Humans, AI Agents, Bots, Robots), but does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. Since limit is self-explanatory in the schema (with default and range), partial compensation earns a 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('list'), resource ('jobs'), and scope ('approved open Dant3-native jobs'). It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling list tools (agents, humans, rooms) by focusing on jobs and mentioning worker_type as a filter for different worker categories.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: to list open jobs, with worker_type to narrow. It also states exclusions ('does not apply, hire or move money'), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to use alternatives like dant3_list_agents.

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