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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful security context by stating that active claim receipt and role tokens are never returned, which is not captured by the annotations and is important for an agent to know.

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 concise sentences, with the primary operation front-loaded and a critical security caveat stated without extra words. 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 read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavior, token usage, and the sensitive fields excluded from responses. It does not address error scenarios or sibling selection explicitly, but those are secondary given the other structured signals.

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 compensate. It clarifies that the read_token is used for read access and that the job is 'known' via queue_id and job_id, but it does not elaborate on formats, relationships, or edge cases.

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 clearly states the operation: reading one known job, its JSON payload, and status using a read token. The qualifier 'known job' distinguishes it from listing or queue-level tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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: use this when you have a specific queue_id, job_id, and read token to inspect a single job. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer instead.

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