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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description needs only supplementary context. It adds meaningful disclosure about unbounded default scope ('every job of the practice') and the endpoint, which helps an agent anticipate result volume.

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?

Front-loads the return fields, then the filters, then the no-filter warning, and closes with the endpoint. No sentence is redundant with another.

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 read-only listing tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers return shape, filtering, and the unbounded-result caveat. Only minor gaps remain, such as how filters combine or whether results are ordered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, status enum, client_id and template_id including the cid/wid aliases. The description repeats the filter categories without adding syntax, precedence, or combination semantics, so 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 jobs') and enumerates the returned fields (id, cid, wid, title, main date), which lets an agent match the tool to a data need without opening the schema. It is also clearly distinct from the client-focused siblings, none of which list jobs.

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?

Gives an explicit operational rule: with no filter it returns every job of the practice, so filter when possible. It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling in the list competes for this use case, so the absence is minor.

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