list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: that the call is free (no cost) and that results are ordered newest-first. It omits pagination behavior and the meaning of the status filter, which would have been useful.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the behavioral facts ('Free', newest-first) front-loaded before the follow-up routing advice. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description does well to say results are newest-first and to point at get_job for detail. However, for a paginated list tool with three entirely undocumented parameters, it leaves the agent without guidance on paging or filtering, which is the main gap.

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 carries the burden for limit, offset, and status — and it addresses none of them. It never mentions that status filters results, that limit defaults to 20 and caps at 500, or what the offset does. An agent must infer all of this from bare property names.

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 recent jobs for this account') plus a scoping detail ('newest first'). It also distinguishes itself from get_job by naming that sibling as the follow-up step, though it does not differentiate from list_categories or the other list-style siblings.

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?

Gives a clear use case: recover an existing job_id, then continue with get_job. That is an explicit alternative-and-next-step pointer. It stops short of saying when *not* to use it (e.g., when you already have the job_id, skip straight to get_job).

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