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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that IDs are returned for reuse; it says nothing about pagination behavior despite the limit parameter, or about whether all workflows are always present.

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 stating the resource and the value of the returned IDs, followed by the raw endpoint. It is compact and wastes little, though the trailing GET path adds marginal value for an agent.

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 read-only list tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema the description should say more about the return shape beyond 'ids' — e.g. status names, workflow grouping, or pagination cues — to fully prepare an agent for the response.

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% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (1-100, default 25). The description adds no additional meaning about paging or result-size tradeoffs, 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?

The description names a specific resource — the custom job statuses of all workflows — and clarifies that IDs are included for use in job filtering or status setting. It is clearly distinct from the sibling fieldpulse_list_job_status_workflows (which returns the workflows themselves), though it does not explicitly say so.

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 parenthetical '(for filtering jobs or setting a status)' implies a downstream use case, so an agent can infer when to reach for this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling alternative named for related lookups.

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