get_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses little beyond the obvious read nature. It says nothing about pagination behavior (the limit default is only in the schema), auth requirements, or what the returned records contain.

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 core purpose and with zero filler. The second sentence is partly a restatement of the first, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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, fully-described, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Return-shape and pagination details are the only real omissions.

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%, so limit, search, status, and starred_only are already fully documented in the schema and enum. The description adds no extra meaning, making the baseline 3 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 (Get) and resource (user's saved jobs) plus the salient attribute (current status). It implicitly distinguishes the saved-jobs collection from siblings like discover_jobs and get_job_details, though it never names them.

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?

"Use this to check job application status, list all jobs, or find specific jobs" gives usable contexts, but it offers no when-not guidance and doesn't route the agent to alternatives such as get_job_details for a single job or discover_jobs for new jobs.

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