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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only active/recent jobs are listed, but does not describe default pagination or response shape.

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?

One short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by the optional filter. No wasted words; appropriate for such a simple tool.

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?

The combination of schema, annotations, and description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly, but the phrase 'active and recent' is somewhat vague and there is no return-format hint since no output schema exists. For a simple read-only list this is acceptable but not fully fleshed out.

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% and both limit and status have descriptions; the description adds no meaning for limit but confirms status filter is optional. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('your active and recent jobs'), and the optional status filter clarifies scope. It is clearly differentiated from job_get (single job) and job_cancel (mutation), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

It states the core use case (listing active/recent jobs) and notes an optional status filter, implying how to narrow results. However, it never mentions alternatives such as job_get for retrieving one job's details, so routing guidance is only implied.

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