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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: result ordering (most recent first) and the exposed field set (status/data_name/duration), but it omits pagination behavior and the default treatment of deleted jobs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, with no wasted words. The endpoint note is compact rather than padding.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, which is what an agent most needs for a read-only list tool. Minor gaps remain around pagination mechanics and the default visibility of deleted jobs, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (limit, created_before, include_deleted) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as default limit or whether deleted jobs are hidden by default.

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 transcription jobs) plus ordering and the fields surfaced, so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from the singular sibling speechmatics_get_job, leaving the list-vs-single distinction to inference.

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 description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as speechmatics_get_job or speechmatics_get_usage, and lists no prerequisites or exclusions. The listing intent is only implied by the word 'List'.

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