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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining subtle behavioral semantics: the lifecycle of close_requested_at (cleared on any poster message), auto_released_at (only set after 7 unanswered days with automatic payment release), and the inference that a completed job with auto_released_at set was never marked complete by the poster. This is valuable interpretive context that an agent needs to correctly understand the returned data, and it adds significant value beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then uses two additional sentences to explain two non-obvious close-request fields. Every sentence earns its place; the field semantics are necessary for correct interpretation and are not present in the schema or annotations. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the reach of the operation (any status), explains the two edge-case fields that would otherwise confuse an agent, and relies on the schema for the job_id format. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly is missing.

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 parameter job_id, including its description 'The job's UUID.' The tool description adds only the phrase 'by id,' which does not meaningfully improve on the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch full detail for a single job by id.' It also clarifies scope with 'regardless of its status (open, in progress, completed, or cancelled),' which clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like get_my_jobs or get_user_jobs. An agent immediately knows what the tool does and what it is not.

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 implies the appropriate use case: when you have a job id and need complete detail for that job, independent of its current status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use get_my_jobs to list your jobs,' but the 'by id' and 'regardless of status' phrasing provides clear situational context. The guidance is adequate though not explicitly exclusionary.

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