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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and closed-world; the description reinforces this by saying 'Read' and adds a specific safety guarantee: it never authorizes another purchase. This is valuable context because the title 'Recover' could otherwise hint at re-running a paid job. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the safety caveat after. Every word adds information; no padding.

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 getter, the description covers what is returned (job, result, receipt), whose jobs are in scope (this agent's), and the side-effect profile (no purchase). It does not describe response shape or error cases, but with readOnly annotations and a UUID parameter, the remaining gap is minor.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does supply scope: job_id refers to a saved account-funded job belonging to this agent. It does not explicitly explain how to obtain job_id or what values are valid beyond the UUID format. For a single self-descriptive parameter this is adequate but minimal.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('this agent's saved job, result and receipt'), clearly scoping the operation. The title and 'account-funded' language distinguish it from buyer-job and submission tools. This is unambiguous relative to siblings like get_job_status and get_job_result.

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?

It gives clear retrieval context: this tool is for reading a saved account-funded job's job, result, and receipt for the current agent. 'Never authorizes another purchase' is an explicit when-not that warns against using it for purchase or re-run workflows. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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