list_job_attempts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only,' which is a useful safety signal, but it does not disclose what happens when both parameters are provided, neither is provided, or whether the response is paginated. The read-only claim is meaningful but minimal.

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 a single focused sentence plus a short read-only qualifier. Every word adds value, and the core behavior is stated up front without filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter list tool the description is mostly adequate, but the missing output schema and sparse annotation coverage leave room for ambiguity about required parameter combinations and return shape. An agent could call it without knowing whether both jobId and paymentId may be supplied.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It names both jobId and paymentId and indicates they are alternative filters via 'one ... or,' but it does not clarify whether exactly one is required, what each identifier refers to beyond its pattern, or how the two interact.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List settlement-job attempts' and scopes it to 'one jobId or paymentId'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like retry_job or get_payment by focusing on a read-only list of attempts rather than a mutation or a single payment lookup.

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 states when to use the tool: when you have a jobId or paymentId and need to see settlement-job attempts. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives or conditions for choosing siblings, but the context is clear enough for straightforward routing.

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