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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the required 'read scope' authorization and by describing the payload contents, which the annotations do not.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste: the payload is front-loaded, then the sibling routing, then the auth requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating return contents. For a single-record read tool it is nearly complete; only error/missing-job behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The job id.'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format, id-source, or validity detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('One job in full') and enumerates exactly what is returned: transcript, running/idle status, outputs with queue state and media, and the web url. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling jobs_brief, so an agent can choose without opening either 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?

Names the alternative tool (jobs_brief) together with the condition that selects it ('when you only need enough to reply'). The brief-vs-full routing decision is fully spelled out rather than left to inference.

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