List jobs

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world read, so the description's extra value is in ordering ('newest number first'), the default active-only filter, and cursor-based paging. The ambiguous clause 'status then filters the page you get' hints that filtering happens after the limit is applied, which is a genuinely useful if slightly murky disclosure.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: return fields first, then ordering and default scope, then parameter interactions, then the cursor instruction. The opening sentence is a bare noun-phrase fragment that reads awkwardly, but every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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 compensates by naming the five returned fields, the sort order, the default filter, and the continuation mechanism. An agent can call this correctly and paginate without needing anything further.

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 80%, so the schema does much of the work, but the description adds real meaning: cursor must be the next_cursor from a prior call, and customer_id composes with status in a way the schema alone does not convey. It says nothing about `search` or `limit`, which is the remaining gap.

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 ('Lists jobs') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (number, customer, site address, status, assigned staff), which tells an agent this is a bulk job listing rather than a single-record fetch. It doesn't explicitly name get_job as the single-record alternative, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives clear operating context: default is active-only, and 'status all, a built-in status or the name of a custom status narrows it' tells exactly what values do. It also flags the non-obvious combination rule that customer_id plus status filters within the returned page. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, keeping it below 5.

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