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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure and does a reasonable job by enumerating the returned data and mentioning the stat ceilings for normalization. It does not mention failure modes, availability of invalid job IDs, or whether this is read-only, though the content strongly implies a read operation.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the record type before the details. The only slightly off-topic sentence is the free/unmetered note, but it is short and not disruptive.

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 data-fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return fields, but an agent still lacks usage context: when this is preferable to search or query_equipment, how failures are surfaced, and what the lang parameter affects. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 already documents jobId and version with example and enum details, and schema coverage is 67%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not cover the undocumented lang parameter.

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 identifies the resource as the job record and enumerates its contents (stat multipliers, stat ceilings, abilities with JP costs, equippable types), making it clear what the tool returns. It is distinguishable from related getters like get_monster, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns' at the start.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to prefer get_job over siblings like query_equipment, search, or compare_versions. The 'Free while this deployment runs unmetered' line is a cost note, not a selection criterion, so an agent has no exclusions or alternatives to reason with.

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