List Jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and provides a docs link for further detail, but does not state read-only nature, response format, or any rate limits. The minimal transparency is adequate for a list operation but not rich.

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 plus a docs link. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a filter hint, and ends with a reference link. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the 5 parameters, nested extra_query, and lack of output schema, the description provides essential usage context: pagination, filters, and a docs URL for exact parameters. It does not describe the response shape, but the word 'list' implies an array of jobs, and the docs link fills gaps. This is reasonably complete for a list tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for extra_query (customer_id, employee_ids, work_status, scheduled_start_min/max), with scheduled_start_min/max not already in the schema. This helps agents understand how to construct filters.

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 states 'List/search jobs, paginated' which clearly identifies the verb (list/search), resource (jobs), and scope (paginated). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job (single job) and list_estimates (different resource).

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 gives specific guidance on using extra_query for filters, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_job or state when not to use this tool. Usage context is implied by 'list/search', but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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