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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: 'Private' (identity-scoped visibility), 'pure read', and the fact that the result is a committed terminal receipt rather than an in-progress state. It says nothing about behavior for unknown or expired job ids.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and safety characterization before the usage condition. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, scoping, and usage adequately for a one-parameter read tool; only the origin/validity of job_id is left unstated.

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 0% and the single parameter job_id has no description in the schema; the tool description also never explains where job_id comes from or what format it takes. With only one parameter the burden is modest, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a job held by this identity and its committed terminal receipt') plus a scoping qualifier ('Private pure read'), which distinguishes it from claim_research_job, renew_research_job, and submit_research_job_result without requiring the agent to open a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: 'Use after an ambiguous submission; never guess whether it committed.' That is a concrete when-to-use rule that steers the agent away from blind retries. It does not name alternative tools or state when-not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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