listJobs

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination and filtering only implicitly through parameter names, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are sorted. The default exclusion of 'revenue_posting' is hinted in a parameter but not in description.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., array of job objects with fields). It does not. For a paginated list with 5 parameters, the description could include common usage context like cursor handling or result ordering. Lacks completeness for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minor context by listing example job types, but does not add significant meaning beyond schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'paginated list of async jobs', with concrete examples like 'invoice generation, revenue recognition'. It distinguishes itself from other list tools by specifying the job focus.

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 implies use when wanting to list async jobs, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listInvoices or listRevenuePostings. No when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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