List job alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses pagination behavior and, notably, that each response includes a system_instruction telling the client how to present results — non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then cleanly sectioned into Input and Output blocks. It is slightly redundant with the input schema (limit/offset/status repeated verbatim), but not verbose and every section is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no nesting) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description still covers filtering, pagination and the system_instruction behavior, leaving little an agent would need to guess at.

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%, and the description largely restates the same limit/offset/status details. It adds only a marginal clarification (status default is "all statuses" and that all three params are optional). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents every parameter.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Lists the authenticated user's job alerts") and adds meaningful scope ("across all subscription sources (regular, company page, MCP)") that goes beyond the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like jobs_recommendations or jobs_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies this is the way to enumerate the user's own alerts, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as jobs_recommendations. Usage is inferable from the name and scope rather than stated.

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