Search jobs visits report (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, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a read is issued as POST with filters in the body, results are proxy-observed traffic-derived and should be confirmed, and the returned JSON key set (draw, recordsTotal, recordsFiltered, data, meta, table_id, settings) is disclosed. The main omission is error/auth behavior and pagination 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?

Purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, which is good, but the bulk of the text is a long comma-separated key dump that is only partially complete and hard to scan. It earns its place functionally, yet a structured or summarized form would communicate the same contract far more efficiently.

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 output schema, the description usefully lists return keys, and it explains the POST-with-body quirk of a read query. The truncated columns list and absence of paging-size limits or error semantics are the remaining gaps, but the essentials for invoking it are present.

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%, but the body schema is a free-form object that only says 'Match the fields listed in the description' — so the enumerated DataTables keys (draw, columns[n][data|name|searchable|orderable|search][value|regex]) are the actual contract and add real meaning. The enumeration is cut off mid-way at columns[6], leaving later columns unspecified.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search jobs visits report') and disambiguates it as a server-side table query with paging, sorting, and filters, plus the underlying endpoint. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the very similar siblings singleops_read_search_jobs_report or singleops_read_search_visits_approved, so an agent still has to guess which report variant to pick.

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 description never states when to use this tool versus the many overlapping report/search siblings. The only guidance-adjacent sentence, 'Inferred from the SingleOps web app's own traffic; confirm results,' is a reliability caveat rather than a usage rule.

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