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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful scope context beyond that: only currently running jobs are returned (not historical), and the response includes per-account saturation against maxJobs, which is a useful signal an agent can act on.

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 covering scope and return content, plus the endpoint reference 'GET /jobs.' Nothing is padded, though the trailing endpoint note is marginally redundant for an agent that only needs selection semantics.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by naming what comes back: running image/video jobs plus per-account running counts against maxJobs. With zero inputs and safety fully covered by annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; pagination or result-size behavior is the only unaddressed area.

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 no parameter semantics to document. The description's mention of maxJobs describes response content rather than input, which is harmless.

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 (List) and resource (image and video jobs running now), and further specifies what is included beyond the jobs themselves (each account's running count against maxJobs). This clearly separates it from the singular muse_get_job, though it never names that sibling 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?

'Running now' implies the usage context (current-state overview rather than historical lookup), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives such as muse_get_job or muse_generate_image. The agent must infer that this is the overview tool.

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