List recent generations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: account-wide scope, most-recent-first ordering, and that results include status and result URLs. It doesn't say whether history is truncated at 50 or how to reach older jobs, which for a "recent history" tool is a real omission.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope before the usage hint and the parameter note. The final sentence largely duplicates the schema's own parameter description, which is the only wasted space.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and annotations plus full schema coverage handle safety and the one parameter. The remaining gap is whether the list is bounded to a recent window and whether older jobs are retrievable, which matters for the stated "resume past work" use case.

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% and the single limit parameter is fully documented there, including the 1-50 range and default 20. The description restates that verbatim rather than adding semantics (e.g. ordering interaction or behavior at the cap), so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Browse the account's recent generation history") and enumerates the job types returned (video, UGC, image-ad, subtitle) plus what each carries. An agent can distinguish it from generate_* siblings, though it never names get_job, the natural counterpart for a single job.

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?

"Use this to review or resume past work" gives a clear positive use case, and the default/limit bounds are stated. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to get_job for a single job or list_brands for other listing needs, so no true when-not guidance exists.

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