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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds the useful detail that results are scoped to the current principal, but it does not disclose list ordering, pagination behavior, or how include_archived affects results.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, though it arguably compresses too much potentially useful context into an underspecified phrase.

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 4-parameter list operation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this description is too thin. An agent would not know how pagination works, what the returned payload contains, or how archived jobs are treated.

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?

There are four parameters and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain or at least hint at the parameters. It says nothing about limit, request_id, starting_after, or include_archived, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.

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 states a specific verb (List), resource (internal Job containers), and authorization scope (visible to current principal). It is clear enough to identify the tool as a list operation, though 'internal Job containers' is somewhat jargon-heavy and it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like job_postings_list.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as yardstick_jobs_read or yardstick_job_postings_list. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or a reason to prefer this tool for a particular case.

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