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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by clarifying this is a fetch (read) operation that returns the full job including the description field. It does not disclose error/not-found behavior, which is a minor gap for a read-by-id tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and identifier source, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema; the description tells the agent exactly what to provide and what it will get back (full job with description). It omits only non-critical details like not-found handling and explicit sibling routing.

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 already describes id as 6-16 char hex (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where the id comes from (end of detail_url) and reinforces the expected format, though its '8-hex' phrase is slightly narrower than the schema's '6-16 char'.

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 action ('Fetch one job in full'), a concrete resource ('one job'), and a precise identifier source (the 8-hex id from detail_url). The phrase 'in full (description included)' distinguishes this from list/search siblings that return summaries.

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?

Implied usage is clear: use this when you already have the job id from a detail_url and need the complete record. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the single-job-by-id framing makes the routing unambiguous for most agents.

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