fetch_jobs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuine behavior beyond them: partial-failure semantics (failed boards are skipped while the rest are still recorded) and the meaning of the offline-board warning. This failure-mode disclosure is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and every clause carries information (counts, failures, warnings, sequencing). It is dense and parenthetical-heavy, which slightly hurts readability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be spelled out, yet the description covers side effects, partial-failure handling, warning meaning, and the downstream call. Complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly; idempotency behavior could be made more explicit but is not essential.

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 the schema needs no supplementation and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter talk where none exists.

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+resource and scope: 'Check every board in the watchlist and record new roles.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_digest ('which lists the new roles themselves'), so an agent can separate the two 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?

Gives clear sequencing ('Run it before get_digest') and names the correct alternative for the offline-board warning case (add_board with careers). It does not state when not to run it, but the ordering and follow-up conditions are explicit.

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