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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds that this is a reference list of status names/fields rather than job records, plus the endpoint, which is sufficient context for a simple lookup; pagination details are left to the schema.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the returned resource and its use, with no filler. The endpoint mention is a small but relevant anchor.

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 lookup with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and intended use. It need not explain the response envelope or pagination because the schema covers pagination.

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 page, per_page, sort, and fields are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond that, 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 the resource and the exact fields returned (code, name, custom flag, category), and ties them to creating or filtering jobs. It is clearly distinguishable from list_jobs and list_job_categories, though it relies on the title for the verb 'List'.

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?

It states the practical use case: retrieving job status names to use when creating or filtering jobs. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it provides clear context without exclusions.

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