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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: results span every account tied to the token, only in-flight jobs appear, and each row carries verb/elapsed time plus a total. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, which keeps it short of a 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 compact sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what is listed before the routing hint. Every clause carries information: scope, fields, exclusion, alternative, endpoint.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it names the fields returned, the filtering rule, and where to go for per-job detail. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 0-param tool applies. The description instead clarifies the implicit scoping (the token's accounts), which is the only input-like dimension that matters here.

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 jobs running now') with explicit scope ('on each account of this API token') and enumerates the fields returned (verb, elapsed time, total). It also carves itself away from mureka_get_job, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling that fetches a single job.

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?

Gives both the inclusion condition ('jobs running now') and the exclusion ('finished jobs are not listed'), plus an explicit alternative with the selecting condition: use mureka_get_job with its jobid for one job's status and result. 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.