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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the 'public' access scope and the cardinality of 'one' job, which are not captured in the annotations.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, public scope, and identifier type are all present and front-loaded.

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 low-complexity read-by-ID tool with rich safety annotations and a single required parameter, the description contains what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It could mention return format or missing-ID behavior, but the absence is minor for this exact-match read operation.

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. By calling the parameter a 'canonical ID,' it tells the agent this is the stable system identifier rather than a name or search term, going beyond the schema's bare string length constraints.

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 names a specific operation (read), a specific resource (one public job), and the selection key (canonical ID). It clearly distinguishes itself from discovery-oriented siblings like search_jobs and list_job_categories.

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 when to use this tool: when you already have a canonical job ID and want a single public job. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, even though search_jobs exists as a sibling.

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