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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds non-obvious behavior: fuzzy 'close spellings' matching means results are ranked guesses requiring user confirmation, and templates are brand-scoped so a job can only use a template from its own brand. That is substantive context beyond structured fields.

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-loaded with purpose and scoping, and each sentence carries a distinct instruction. However, the brand constraint is repeated from the schema and the passage runs five sentences for a two-parameter tool, so it is slightly longer than necessary.

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 explains what a template is, that results are ranked guesses, and what fields matter (brand), which is enough for correct invocation. It stops short of describing the result shape or pagination, a minor gap for a list tool.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them (brand scoping, omitting query to sample). It reinforces intent but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 job templates') plus scope ('in every brand the user holds, ranked against what the user called the work'), which is more than a bare label. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_job by naming the dependency relationship ('create_job needs one wherever they exist').

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: name the intended result back to the user and get agreement before creating anything, and 'Call with no query only to sample what exists.' It also tells the agent how to pick the brand parameter relative to the customer/project. Nothing is left to inference.

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