list_job_errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: results are newest-first and sensitive values are redacted, which materially affects how an agent reads the output. Pagination/limit behavior is still undisclosed.

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 clipped sentences that front-load the resource and ordering. Slight redundancy between 'most recent' and 'newest first', and the terseness starts to cost clarity rather than save space.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and redaction is mentioned. But for a diagnostic tool with an undocumented limit parameter and no routing guidance against get_job_status, the description is only minimally sufficient.

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 only 50%: job_code carries a pattern and example, but limit is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about how many errors are returned or what limit controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific resource and scope: pipeline errors belonging to a job, with explicit ordering (newest first). The verb is implied by the name rather than the sentence, and no sibling is named, but none of the siblings (get_job_status, submit_job, retry_job) list errors, so confusion is unlikely.

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 and no mention of an alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to reach for list_job_errors or get_job_status when diagnosing a failed job, nor whether it should be called after retry_job fails.

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