List validated jobs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, which already conveys safety. The description adds context about the specific Algorand TestNet app, the newest-first ordering, and that specs/results stay offchain. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them, though it doesn't describe return formatting or pagination.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the action and filters, the second adds useful context about offchain storage. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple list operation with no output schema, and the description does not specify the structure of returned job objects. While it gives useful context (app ID, hash commitment, offchain storage), the absence of return-format details leaves the description not fully complete for an agent.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with meaningful details (e.g., status enum and the 'disputed' clarification, agentId scope). The tool description's mention of filtering is redundant with the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('jobs on the ValidationRegistry'), including ordering ('newest first') and filter options. It differentiates from siblings like ripar_post_job (create) and ripar_search_agents (search agents) by focusing on job listing.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to list jobs with optional filters by status or agent. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb and resource make the use case unambiguous, so it misses the explicit 'when-not' guidance that would earn a 5.

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