Search jobs progress billing (server-side table query: paging, sorting, filters)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses that the shape was inferred from observed app traffic and should be confirmed, and it lists return JSON keys (draw, recordsTotal, data, meta, table_id, settings) since no output schema exists. It does not explain pagination behavior or response size limits.

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 definition is dominated by a verbatim dump of every DataTables query parameter, which duplicates the schema wholesale. Front-loading is poor: the useful caveat and return keys are buried after dozens of redundant param names, and much of the text earns no place.

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 106-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thin where it matters: no explanation of how to construct a meaningful query, no defaults, no paging guidance, and no note on which of the massive param set actually affect results. The return-key list helps but the operational guidance is inadequate for this complexity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the coverage is largely tautological ("Query parameter X") and the description merely repeats the 100+ param names without explaining any semantics — e.g., date formats, what manual_progress_type or include_recurring actually filter on, or the response_format option. It adds essentially no meaning over 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 and resource ("Search jobs progress billing") plus the mechanism (server-side DataTables query) and the underlying endpoint. However, it never explains what 'progress billing' data contains or how it differs from the many sibling search/report tools, so an agent must infer differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the ~20 sibling search/report tools (search_jobs, search_jobs_report, get_job_profit_margin_report, etc.). Aside from a generic "confirm results" caveat, nothing tells the agent conditions for selection or exclusion.

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