List account cron jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, relieving the description of that burden. The description does add that the response includes schedule and command, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, filtering, or error behavior. Given the simplicity and the annotations, this is sufficient but not exemplary.

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?

A single, tight sentence that states purpose and content without any filler. Everything is front-loaded and directly relevant. There is no redundant information.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It explains the return includes schedule and command, which gives some insight into the response structure. However, it stops short of describing the full response format (e.g., fields, types). For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but could be slightly enriched.

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 input schema covers 100% of the one parameter, but its description ('username parameter') is uninformative. The tool description clarifies that username refers to the 'specified account', providing some additional meaning. This meets the baseline for full coverage, but doesn't go further to explain format or constraints.

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 states the verb (Returns), the resource (list of cron jobs), and the scope (for the specified account). It specifies that the list includes schedule and command, which is precise and unambiguous. The name and description together distinguish it from create/delete and output-retrieval cron job tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the website-level variant.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would use this when needing to list cron jobs for an account. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it, nor any mention of alternatives such as agency-hosting_listWebsiteCronJobsV1 for website-scoped cron jobs. The sibling list is large and includes a very similar tool, but the description provides no differentiation.

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