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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the 60-minute tracking ceiling, that results include the owning account, and that free job slots per account are returned, plus the underlying endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the scope, contents and constraint, followed by the endpoint reference. No padding, though the raw 'GET /scheduler/available' is marginally useful to an agent and could be considered overhead.

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 enumerates what comes back (running tasks, their account, free job slots) and the tracking window. A note on response volume or ordering would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing essential is missing for a zero-arg read 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema is 4. No misleading hints about hidden filters are given.

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?

Specific verb (list) and resource (running jobs) with precise scoping: only tasks started by this API token, only still-running ones, and only within a 60-minute tracking window. That scope cleanly separates it from the general kling_list_tasks sibling without needing to name it.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope — an agent can infer this is for polling in-flight jobs rather than all tasks — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer kling_list_tasks instead, and no mention of rate/polling expectations.

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