list_queued_jobs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the sort order (oldest first) and actionable workflow context (ask contacts for a referral before applying, check warnings for pay/place/flagged text), which goes beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing volume limits or pagination.

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 purpose and ordering, then routing guidance. The parenthetical enumerations of fields and the referral aside add useful detail but make the single sentence dense; still, every clause earns its place.

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 zero-argument list tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back, the sort order, how entries get here, and which sibling to use for other cases. Return-value detail is rightly left to the output schema.

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 no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no space on argument syntax and instead documents what the (parameterless) result contains.

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 (queued jobs to apply to) and the ordering (oldest first), plus what each entry carries (fit scores, notes, contacts, warnings). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_applications and marks mark_job as the source of these entries.

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 an explicit use case ('Use it to pick the next application'), how items arrive here ('through mark_job with status queued'), and names the alternative for the other case ('For applications already sent use list_applications'). Nothing is left to inference.

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