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 fully covered elsewhere. The description's additions ('Read an authorized job', 'No closure or sign-off operation') gesture at permission scoping and scope boundaries but never state what authorization means or what happens on an unauthorized ID.

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?

Three very short sentences, front-loaded with the use case. There is mild redundancy — 'examining one job' and 'Read an authorized job' restate each other, and 'approval history' appears twice — but nothing is bloated.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description adequately signals scope by listing the content returned (parts, notes, approval history). Its main omission is disambiguating itself from view_work_order and search_work_orders, which matters given six near-neighbor siblings.

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?

The single workOrderId parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description would need to compensate — but it says nothing about the ID's source or format. The schema still provides type, min/max length and required-ness, and the parameter name is largely self-explanatory, so this is not a severe gap, but no meaning is added beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('examining one job'), and enumerates what the read covers: recorded parts, notes, approval history. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as view_work_order, view_work_orders, and search_work_orders, so an agent cannot tell which of these to pick from the description alone.

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?

'Use this when examining one job' gives an implied use case, and 'No closure or sign-off operation' sets a boundary on what it will not do. But it never names the alternative tool an agent should use for writes or for broad listing, and gives no prerequisites beyond a vague 'authorized'.

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