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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value on top: bounded scan behavior, continuation handling, "complete/truncated" status, and that "result bodies are excluded." This is genuinely useful disclosure about output shape and safety posture beyond the annotations.

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 scope and permission constraints are front-loaded effectively, but the long negative list ("No wallet selector, public report/share link, model prompt, research, source fetch, signer, purchase or mutation authority") is padded and partly redundant with the readOnly annotation. Dense but not maximally efficient.

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 values needn't be explained, and the description covers auth, scope, and pagination semantics well. However, for a 7-parameter tool where nothing documents the parameters, the definition is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 7 parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. "Bounded scan/continuation" only loosely gestures at limit/cursor; from, to, search, network, and surface are entirely undocumented in both places, leaving the agent to infer semantics from enum values and patterns alone.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Manual finite JSON metadata export") and narrows the scope precisely: "Exact-payer completed private jobs in the current store." It is clearly different from history_private_jobs_list/detail in intent, though it never names those siblings directly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives prerequisite context ("Private data for this authenticated caller only," "explicit history:read required") but never says when to choose this over history_private_jobs_list, history_private_jobs_detail, history_export, or run_owner_export. Usage is implied by scope rather than stated as an explicit when/when-not routing rule.

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