List tracked jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that results come back grouped by status, that pagination metadata is included, and that a system_instruction governs result presentation for the current client — genuinely useful behavioral context for a read tool.

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 one-line purpose, then clearly sectioned Input/Output headings — easy to scan. It loses a point for duplicating the schema's parameter text verbatim, which is redundancy rather than added information.

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?

For a simple zero-required-parameter list tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, params, and response shape adequately. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note the default ordering of the grouped results.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The Input section restates the schema word-for-word (default 20, max 50, default 0, enum-like status values) without adding syntax, validation, or interaction semantics beyond it, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Lists the user's tracked jobs") plus scope (optional filtering and pagination), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not distinguish itself from tracker_remove/tracker_update/tracker_update_status, but the read-only listing intent is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for browsing tracked jobs with filters. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative (e.g. jobs_search for non-tracked jobs), and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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