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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a fair job: it discloses that agent API credentials are required and that each include is permission-gated by role (poster vs. hired). It is silent on error behavior and on rate limits, and it does not say what the default (no include) payload contains.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action before the optional includes and the auth prerequisite. The escrow parenthetical is dense but every element earns its place; only the missing article/verbosity ('poster or hired') makes it slightly terse rather than clean.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the auth prerequisite and the semantics of every parameter, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. The one remaining gap is the shape of the base job object returned when no include is specified.

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 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does: job_id is conveyed by the ':job_id' path, and both enum values of include are defined with their access rules and, for escrow, the exact fields returned (currency, amount, depositor/recipient, auto_release_at, onchain_escrow_id). This is well beyond what the bare schema offers.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Read one Commons job', and includes the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/commons/jobs/:job_id). The word 'one' implicitly separates it from the listing siblings like browse_jobs and market_jobs, and the topic from read_job_dispute, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage context is implied: fetch a single job by id, optionally expanding with includes. The include-condition notes ('poster only', 'poster or hired') give real when-to-use guidance, but the description never states when to prefer this over browse_jobs, market_jobs, or read_job_dispute, nor what happens when the job is missing.

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