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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the four facts are independent and never collapse into one status, so a job can simultaneously be 'done with a failed gate' and have a verified endpoint deletion, and receipts are hash-bound. This prevents an agent from misreading the response as a single aggregate status.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the payload structure and followed by the semantic caveat and the sibling routing. The tradeoff is that compression into terms like 'four independent facts' costs comprehension.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does name the shape (four facts plus receipts) and the gate-verdict listing format. It is not fully complete because 'four independent facts' is never enumerated, leaving the agent to infer the actual field set.

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%, so all three parameters (jobId, projectId, customerId with its superadmin caveat) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 conveys that this returns one training job's data, and it names the sibling it differs from (get_gate_result). However, it never states the action explicitly ('retrieve/fetch a job') and leans on undefined product jargon — 'four independent facts' and 'hash-bound receipts' — that an agent cannot decode without prior knowledge of this domain.

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 gives explicit routing: use this tool to see gate verdicts listed by id and outcome, use get_gate_result when you need one verdict in full. That is a concrete this-vs-alternative rule. It stops short of a full 5 because there is no guidance on when not to call it or on prerequisites for the superadmin-only customerId path.

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