Industry jobs and blueprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned fields, but omits behavior an agent would want: that delivered/cancelled jobs are excluded by default and that the call falls back to the active character.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the primary payload (what the tool returns) is front-loaded. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, which slightly weakens scannability.

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?

Five optional parameters, all schema-documented, and the description lists the fields returned in place of an output schema, so an agent can call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain: default-exclusion of completed jobs and the active-character fallback are not surfaced in prose.

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 100%, so all five parameters (limit, include, character, blueprint_filter, include_completed_jobs) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the blueprint name filter, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (industry jobs / blueprints) and enumerates the fields each covers (activity, blueprint, product, runs, facility, time left; BPO/BPC, ME/TE, runs, location), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. No other sibling deals with industry, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, and there is no leading verb ('List/Get').

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a character must be selected or that this requires the character to have industry jobs). A fragment ('Filter blueprints by name') is the only usage hint.

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