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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the domain model of jobs as the anchor for shifts/time, the relational scope (parent job and sub-jobs, schedulers/time clocks they belong to), and the presence of GPS/geofence data in results. It omits anything about the connecteam-specific include_deleted default, but the schema covers that.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and the definition, then the returned fields, then the endpoint. It is dense but every clause carries information; the long comma-separated field list makes it slightly run-on.

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, the description usefully enumerates what a returned job contains, which is the main gap a caller would otherwise face. Pagination and filtering semantics live in the schema. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on the deleted-jobs default behavior would round it out.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are documented in the schema itself (including the parent-id-returns-sub-jobs nuance and pagination via next_offset). The description adds no syntax or semantic detail about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (jobs), and it goes further by defining what a job is in domain terms ('the work items shifts and time are tracked against'). It enumerates the returned fields and names the endpoint, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling connecteam_get_job.

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 implied rather than stated: the filter parameters (job_ids, job_codes, job_names, instance_ids) signal this is a bulk/collection retrieval, but the description never says when to use it instead of connecteam_get_job for a single job, nor when to reach for connecteam_list_shifts. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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