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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first) and scope ('recent'), which is useful, but says nothing about how 'recent' is bounded, pagination, whether results are stateless, or auth requirements — significant gaps for a list tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with the ordering constraint front-loaded and no filler. It earns its place, though the sparseness reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin to be complete. It should clarify what 'recent' means, the default and max result count, and how this differs from get_job and get_job_results.

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 is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage and only numeric min/max bounds. The description never mentions the limit parameter, its default value, or its interaction with the 'recent' window, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names the resource (jobs), scopes it to the account, and states an ordering (newest first), so an agent knows it is a list operation. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like get_job, get_job_results, or list_pipelines, which is the sharper part of this dimension.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_job/get_job_results for single-job inspection, and no conditions for choosing this tool over its siblings. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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