List client jobs for one id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing that the route was inferred from observed browser traffic and results should be confirmed, and it enumerates the returned JSON keys, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 first two sentences are well front-loaded, but they are followed by a 60-plus-item dump of query parameter names that duplicates the schema verbatim and buries the useful caveat. This is the definition of unearned length.

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 72-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does help by listing the return keys. However, it gives no guidance on which handful of parameters (id, start/length, search[value]) an agent should actually use versus the 70 DataTables artifacts, which is the central gap for this tool.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description's long list of query params merely restates schema keys like columns[0][search][regex] without explaining their meaning or which ones actually matter. The DataTables plumbing is entirely undocumented semantically in both places, so nothing is gained beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('client jobs') scoped to one client id, plus the underlying endpoint GET /clients/{id}/jobs. That distinguishes it from siblings like search_jobs or list_client_invoices, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing against siblings such as singleops_read_search_jobs or singleops_read_list_client_visits. The only guidance-like text ('Inferred from the SingleOps web app's own traffic; confirm results') is a reliability caveat, not usage direction.

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