fetch_jobs

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add beyond that. It does: it discloses that failures on individual boards are skipped while the rest are still recorded, which is non-obvious partial-failure semantics an agent needs. It does not restate idempotency or say what 'counts' comprise, but the added failure behavior is genuinely 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 sentences, both front-loaded: the action first, then the failure behavior and the sequencing instruction. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return values; mentioning that it returns counts is a helpful hint rather than a gap. Combined with the partial-failure note and the ordering against get_digest, an agent has everything required to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing inputs and instead explains behavior.

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 ('Check every board in the watchlist and record new roles'), scoping the action to the whole watchlist. It also names the complementary sibling get_digest, so an agent can distinguish it from the listing tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to run this before get_digest and explains the division of labor (this records; get_digest lists the roles). This is a clear sequencing rule, though it gives no explicit 'when not to use' condition or alternative for already-fetched data.

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