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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that results are simplified and exclude report, parts, and time entries, which shapes what the agent can rely on. It omits rate-limit or auth notes, keeping it just short of 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?

Two tight sentences front-loaded with the crucial simplification note, followed by a compact endpoint reference. Every element earns its place, with only the raw 'GET /job/list' being marginal.

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 25-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description conveys content scope, filter surface, and the sibling for full records. Pagination semantics are left to the schema, which is acceptable; 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 coverage is 72% with 25 parameters, so the schema documents most fields itself. The description adds conceptual grouping of the filter dimensions (status, schedule window, technician, team, customer, site, equipment, job type, project) but no format or interaction semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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'), explicitly scopes the content as simplified (no report, parts or time entries), enumerates the filterable dimensions, and names the sibling synchroteam_get_job as the full-record alternative. An agent can distinguish this from both get_job and the other list_* tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to synchroteam_get_job when the full record is needed, establishing the when-to-use contrast. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or references to the other list_* siblings, but the primary alternative is named with clear rationale.

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