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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds concrete behavioral context beyond that: the return shape ('items and an opaque nextCursor') and the pagination contract ('copy nextCursor verbatim until null'). It stops short of noting auth/permission requirements or rate limits, so a 4 rather than 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the contract, then the routing to siblings. Every sentence carries load; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, annotations carry the safety profile, and the param schema is fully documented. Combined with the explicit sibling routing and pagination contract, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains limit, cursor semantics (verbatim, not an offset), status and projectId — including the keyset-vs-offset contrast with sibling tools. The description only restates 'optionally by project or status' and reiterates the cursor rule, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Find recent jobs in the bound deployment') plus the scoping dimensions (project, status). It even names the failure case it covers — 'including when you have lost a job ID' — which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling job tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with their selection conditions: job_get for one job's status/result, job_wait to await terminal state, job_report for full paged reports, job_cancel to stop. 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.