list_video_jobs

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results come from durable local job history rather than a remote source, but says nothing about ordering, whether completed/failed/cancelled jobs are included, retention window, or read-only nature. The disclosure of persistence location is real added value, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 action and followed by the disambiguating constraint. No filler and nothing buried.

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 does the minimum: it establishes what the tool returns conceptually (local durable job records) but not the shape, ordering, or scope of that list. Adequate to identify the tool, thin for calling it confidently.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage — the schema only supplies type, default, and min/max, not meaning. The description never mentions the parameter, so an agent must infer whether it caps returned rows or filters by job count, and gets no guidance on using values near the maximum of 100.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('List recent durable video jobs') with an added scope qualifier ('local job history'). It distinguishes itself from remote Drive search, though it does not differentiate from the closest siblings list_videos or get_video_job.

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?

The clause 'not a remote Drive search' gives one exclusion, but the more likely confusion — choosing between this, list_videos, and get_video_job — is not addressed. Usage is implied rather than stated as a when/when-not rule.

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