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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond restating the list-and-filter operation — no pagination, result-size cap, ordering, or default status behavior for an unbounded 'all jobs' query.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the optional filters; nothing is redundant or padded. Brevity comes at some cost to information, but there is no wasted text.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The notable gap is the unbounded scope of 'all jobs' with no mention of pagination or limits, and no help picking between this and the kernel-scoped job listing siblings.

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 coverage is 100% and the status property already enumerates all seven valid values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only confirms that both parameters are optional filters, adding no format or syntax detail beyond that.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ('List all jobs') plus the two optional narrowing dimensions, so an agent immediately knows what the call returns at a high level. It does not distinguish this from overlapping siblings such as get_job, get_kernel_jobs, or operator_poll_jobs, which is what keeps it out of the top band.

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?

'Optionally filter by kernelId or status' implies the usage pattern (call unfiltered for all jobs, narrow by kernel or status otherwise), which is genuine but implicit guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_kernel_jobs or get_job, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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