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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful scope ('a job you arranged'), which tells the agent it will only see jobs its own app created, and it discloses the return content despite no output schema. It says nothing about freshness of status, polling, or behavior when the job id is unknown.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the trigger condition precedes the payload description. The colon-and-fragment construction reads slightly awkwardly but costs no 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?

For a two-parameter, non-destructive read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the trigger, the id source, and what comes back. Only edge behavior (unknown job id, how current the status is) is unaddressed, which is minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance the schema lacks: the job id is the one report_outcome returned, which defines which ids are valid. The connection parameter is left entirely to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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 names the resource (a job), the trigger (user returns asking about a job you arranged), and the payload returned (status plus the business's updates). It also distinguishes itself from the record-oriented siblings by tying retrieval to a job id produced by report_outcome, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ('when your user returns asking about a job') and implies the id provenance chain from report_outcome. It stops short of naming exclusions, e.g. that business-level details belong in get_business_record, so the boundary versus that sibling must be inferred.

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