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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context by disclosing that a closed job does not error but answers with status "closed" plus a closing date — a non-obvious outcome an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling. It says nothing about invalid-id or not-found behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the lookup key before the field list. The long field enumeration partly duplicates the output schema and is the least-necessary part, but it stays readable and contains no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs and the closed-job special case. The remaining gap is error/not-found behavior, and the return-field list is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists.

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% for the single 'job' parameter, and the description merely restates the accepted forms (id or workfinds.app URL) without adding format or validation detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 resource and access pattern: 'One job by its id or its workfinds.app job URL', immediately distinguishing it from the sibling bulk tool search_jobs. The field enumeration that follows pins down exactly what a single-job retrieval yields, so an agent knows what it gets without opening the output 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?

Usage is only implied: the single-job-by-id framing plus the schema note that the id comes 'from search_jobs' tells an agent this is the follow-up call after a search. The description itself never says when to use this versus search_jobs or the list_* siblings, and gives no exclusions.

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