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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. Beyond that, the description discloses what the response carries ('status and timing') and maps the tool to the underlying endpoint GET /v1/runs/{runId}/jobs, adding real context about the result shape. It does not mention pagination or ordering, so not a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and subject, with the failure-diagnosis rationale and endpoint mapping appended compactly. No sentence is wasted.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, little is demanded of the description, and it does describe the return content (status and timing). It could say more about pagination or step ordering for a list endpoint, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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% for the single run_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description only echoes the id via the URL template and adds no format or constraint details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List the individual steps (jobs) of one run') and immediately disambiguates the jargon by equating steps with jobs. It is clearly distinct from the sibling inngest_get_run, which returns the run itself rather than its constituent steps.

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 clause 'how you find which step of a durable function failed' gives a concrete diagnostic use case, which is far more than implied usage. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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