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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the trailing 'Read-only' sentence is redundant rather than additive. The description does add useful behavioral context about what the response contains (step-level failure detail, timing, runner info), but says nothing about pagination, volume limits, or error behavior for an invalid run_id.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payload content before the usage hint. The final 'Read-only.' fragment duplicates the annotation and earns no place, keeping this from a 5.

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 only two fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers the essentials by previewing the returned job/step data. It omits any mention of result size or whether step logs are included, which would help an agent decide between this and a log-fetching tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (run_id, application_id) are documented inline, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only the implicit link between run_id and list_application_workflow_runs, which the schema already states verbatim.

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 (get) and resource (jobs and step-level detail of one CI/CD workflow run) and enumerates what the payload contains: which step failed, timing, runner info. This distinguishes it from the app-level get_application_jobs and from the list-level list_application_workflow_runs.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow: 'Use after list_application_workflow_runs,' which tells the agent the required precondition (a run_id obtained from that list). No when-not guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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