List known conversion jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value on top: persistence path ($AUDIOBOOK_MCP_HOME/registry.json), most-recent-first ordering, and pagination semantics via has_more/next_offset in the return schema. No contradiction with 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by a cleanly structured Args section and return schema. The return JSON block is verbose but earns its place by defining pagination fields. Some parameter detail overlaps with schema descriptions, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

Complete for a read-only listing tool: purpose, persistence location, ordering, all parameters, and full return schema are covered, and annotations carry the safety profile. A minor gap is that it doesn't note the relationship between job_id in results and tools like get_status, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

Despite the context signal reporting 0% schema coverage, the description documents all three parameters (out_dir exact-match filter, limit 1-100 default 20, offset default 0), adding constraint ranges and defaults beyond the schema's per-property descriptions. The description fully compensates for the coverage signal, though it slightly duplicates what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('List jobs known to this server') and names the persistence location and ordering (most recent first). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like audiobook_get_status (single job), audiobook_start_conversion, and audiobook_cancel_conversion (mutations). An agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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 read-only enumeration purpose is implied, and the distinction from get_status (per-job check) is inferable but never stated. No explicit 'use this when...' guidance or named alternatives/exclusions appear. The ordering and persistence context help, but the tool does not tell the agent when to prefer it over its siblings.

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