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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the bare 'GET /jobs' endpoint string — it does not discuss pagination behavior, result volume, or how filtering interacts, all of which matter for a 9-parameter listing call.

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 plus a short endpoint tag, with no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical facet list is partly wasted because those facets are not exposed as parameters.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description's claims are accurate and it omits only details already carried by the schema. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 89%, so the schema already explains page, limit, search, sort, created range, status_ids, and with_custom_fields in detail. The description only echoes the created-at range and status-id filters and says nothing about search, sorting, or with_custom_fields, so it adds marginal value on top of an already well-documented schema (baseline 3).

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 clear verb and resource ('List or search jobs') and names the facets it covers, which distinguishes it from the singular get_job sibling. However, it lists filters (type, customer, schedule, assignments) that do not obviously map to any schema parameter, so the stated purpose is slightly broader than what the tool actually accepts.

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 by 'list or search' plus the note that results can be narrowed by created-at range or custom status ids. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_job for a single job or list_job_workflow_statuses for discovering status ids; the status_ids schema description, not the tool description, carries that pointer.

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