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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to currently running jobs (not a full job history) and include an aggregate per-account count versus maxJobs.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope statement comes first. The trailing 'GET /jobs' is mildly redundant with the tool name but cheap and useful for endpoint mapping.

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 zero-parameter read tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile and with no output schema to explain, the description covers what is returned (running jobs plus per-account counts). Minor gaps remain around cross-account scope and whether any pagination applies.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is an empty object with additionalProperties false, matching the description's implied no-filter behavior.

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 states a concrete verb+resource (list of jobs running now) and specifies the returned scope, including per-account running counts against maxJobs. It implicitly separates itself from vids_get_job (single job) and the sibling list tools, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion (e.g. queued/completed jobs, other accounts' jobs), and no mention of alternatives such as vids_get_job for a single job's detail. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'running now'.

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