Get archived jobs report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes real extra context by disclosing that the definition was inferred from observed traffic and results should be confirmed, plus it lists the JSON response keys (draw, recordsTotal, data, meta, etc.) absent an output schema. It stops short of explaining pagination semantics or rate-limit/error behavior.

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 purpose and caveat are front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a 68-item enumeration of parameter names that duplicates the input schema verbatim and dominates the description. That bulk does not earn its place; a sentence on DataTables conventions would have been far more useful.

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 68-parameter tool with no output schema, listing the response keys and flagging the inferred/unverified nature are genuinely valuable. However, the description never explains how the paging/sorting/filter parameters are meant to be combined or what the report actually contains, so an agent still lacks the operational detail needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3, but those descriptions are placeholders ('Query parameter "draw"') that convey no meaning. The description merely mirrors the schema's parameter-name dump and never explains DataTables concepts like draw/start/length, search[value], or the table_filter_start/end range params, so it adds no true semantic value.

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 and resource ('Get archived jobs report') and pins it to the concrete endpoint GET /reports/archived_jobs_report, so the agent knows exactly which report is fetched. It does not, however, distinguish this from the many sibling report tools (job_labor_report, job_expenses_report, etc.) beyond the name itself.

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 only guidance offered is 'Inferred from the SingleOps web app's own traffic; confirm results,' which is a reliability caveat rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing says when this report is preferred over the other archived/jobs/report siblings or what filters are needed to get meaningful output.

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