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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'recent' and 'for the workspace,' providing temporal and scope context, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or rate limits. With annotations lowering the bar, this is adequate but not rich.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler words, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though slightly under-specified given the number of parameters and missing return details.

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?

With no output schema and 40% parameter description coverage, the description should explain return format, pagination, or filtering semantics. It only says 'recent' and 'for the workspace,' leaving the agent uncertain about the response structure, cursor usage, and how limit applies. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter 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 only 40% (query and workspace_id have descriptions; limit, cursor, and brand_id do not). The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters—it mentions neither limit nor cursor nor brand_id. No parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides is added.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('repurpose jobs') with a clear scope ('for the workspace'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_repurpose_job (single job retrieval) and create_repurpose_job (creation), though it does not explicitly mention these alternatives.

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?

The description implies when to use it (to list jobs in a workspace) but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools are appropriate (e.g., get_repurpose_job for a single job, create_repurpose_job for creation). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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