Download the records of a finished job

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and openWorld. The description adds that it returns field names and rows, paged, and requires a finished succeeded job. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or other behavioral details. With annotations covering the basics, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisites, then variant details. Efficient and no wasted words, though could be slightly more structured with bullet points for variants.

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?

Covers the key aspects: what it returns (field names and rows, paged), the prerequisite (job must be succeeded), and variant filtering. It doesn't explain return format details like in what structure fields and rows are returned, but no output schema exists, so some description of return values is provided. Missing information about paging limits is in schema. Overall complete enough.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds context about variant meanings (good=deliverable, risk=catch-all, bad=undeliverable) which goes beyond the schema's simple enum descriptions, but the schema already defines the enum and defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: reading the records of a finished job as structured data. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like apollo_export or job_status, which likely deal with jobs.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite: the job must have reached 'succeeded' status, likely directing the agent to use job_status first. It also explains the variant options for email verification filtering, giving guidance on which variant to choose and when. No explicit exclusions beyond the succeeded requirement.

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