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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly hint: close_requested_at lifecycle, auto_released_at semantics over the 7-day window, the distinction between poster-marked completion and auto-release, and bid_count excluding withdrawn bids while get_bids lists them. This is exactly the kind of state-machine nuance an agent needs to interpret the returned object correctly.

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, then each subsequent sentence adds necessary edge-case semantics without fluff. Every sentence earns its place by explaining fields that would otherwise be misinterpreted.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: it promises full detail, clarifies tricky field states, and even routes the agent toward get_bids for withdrawn-bid listings. For a single-parameter read-only tool, this is complete.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already fully describes it as 'The job's UUID' with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter syntax or format details; baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('full detail for a single job') and unique identifier ('by id'). It also covers all job statuses, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from listing-style siblings like get_my_jobs or browse_jobs.

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 clearly states this tool is for single-job detail retrieval by id and explicitly says status does not matter, so there is no hidden exclusion. It does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the 'by id' framing makes the intended usage clear.

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