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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral trait that a job id from another tenant is 'simply not found', which is valuable context beyond the annotations. This informs the agent of an edge case without contradicting anything.

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 sentences with no fluff: the first states the core purpose and the second adds a scoping detail. The most important information is front-loaded, and every word contributes. This is an example of effective brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not fully describe the return format beyond 'Status'. For a simple get operation, this is mostly sufficient, but ambiguous aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens when a job doesn't exist) are only partially covered by 'simply not found'. However, given the tool's simplicity and the annotations providing safety context, the description is adequately complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100% as both 'brand' and 'job_id' have descriptions ('Brand slug.' and 'Job id returned by a mutating tool.'). The description reinforces the brand scope but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 action ('Status of one queued job by id') and the resource ('job'), with a specific scope ('Scoped to the brand'). It is distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which are job-related, and the phrase 'Status of one queued job' is specific enough for an agent to understand exactly what it retrieves.

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 it (to get a job's status by id) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions the brand scoping, which helps with parameter choice, but lacks any comparison to other tools like pipeline_status or package_get. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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