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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: caller-scoped privacy, the history:read permission requirement, bounded scan with continuation (pagination behavior), and explicit handling of unknown provenance and NULL spend/settlement values. This materially helps an agent predict 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the privacy scope, and distinctly terse for the amount of information conveyed. The long negation list is dense but each clause removes a specific capability, so most sentences earn their 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. But with 7 undocumented parameters and no explicit alternatives, the definition is only adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It explains the absence of a wallet selector and hints at limit/cursor via 'bounded scan/continuation', but to, from, search, network, and surface are left for the agent to infer from names 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?

States a specific verb+resource (listing completed private jobs) scoped to 'this authenticated caller' in 'the current store', and the title reinforces it. It also disambiguates from siblings via the negative list (no public report/share link, no research). However, dense jargon like 'exact-payer' and 'creator settlement' muddies the core purpose slightly.

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 declares a prerequisite ('explicit history:read required') and negatives ('No wallet selector'), which imply usage boundaries, but it never says when to choose this over history_owned_read or history_private_jobs_detail. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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