List data specs or jobs

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about pagination and ordering, which goes beyond annotations, but does not introduce additional behavioral caveats. Overall, it sufficiently complements the annotations.

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 description is concise, using two sentences to convey the primary purpose, pagination details, and a key distinction from a sibling tool. It is well-structured, starting with the core functionality and then adding supporting details and alternative references.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's actions, parameters, and pagination. It does not address potential errors or permissions, but these are not required for a simple listing operation. The description is complete enough for typical usage.

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?

The schema already describes all parameters, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining what 'specs' and 'jobs' represent (parsing/mapping rule sets vs. executions). It also clarifies the pagination mechanism, reinforcing the parameter descriptions without redundancy.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists either data specs or data processing jobs, with brief definitions of each. It also explicitly contrasts with a sibling tool for table listing, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using submit_query for live table listings. Pagination instructions (default page size, max, and cursor usage) are also clearly stated, covering practical usage scenarios.

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