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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that job_token is effectively an authorization credential, whether the call is read-only, whether it is idempotent, or whether the returned content changes over the job lifecycle. Only the returned facets are hinted at.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted framing. The trailing comma-list of returned facets is efficient, though slightly run-on.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description should do more. It partially compensates by listing the returned facets, but omits access/authorization expectations and any lifecycle or routing context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for two required parameters. The description never mentions job_id or job_token, so it adds no meaning about the UUID format or the token's role as an access credential — meaning the schema's bare types and the description together still leave the parameters under-explained.

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 gives a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('job'), and enumerates the facets returned (status, messages, history, payment state, expense accounting, result, evidence). It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like human_list_evidence or human_list_expenses, which overlap on the same returned data.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus human_list_evidence, human_list_expenses, human_get_quote, or the other job siblings. The agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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