list_logpush_jobs_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of pagination, filtering, return shape, or any side effects. Compared to simpler list tools that at least state scoping constraints, this adds almost no behavioral detail beyond the verb itself.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: 'List' is the verb, 'Logrush jobs' is the resource, 'for an account' is the scope.

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 one-param list tool, the description is minimally viable: it names the operation and scope. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not mention pagination, result format, or boundaries like zone-vs-account, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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%: the only parameter, account_id, is already documented as 'The account ID.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Description is a clear, specific verb+resource statement: 'List Logpush jobs for an account.' The account scoping cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_logrush_jobs_zone, so an agent can tell them apart without extra context.

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 phrase 'for an account' provides clear context for when to use this tool: account-level Logrush jobs. It does not explicitly exclude zone-level jobs or name the sibling tool, but the scoping is unambiguous enough for a single-param list tool.

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