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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: output is null while sealed, and the response exposes payment terms, deadlines, and available_actions. It does not discuss errors or auth, but the membership phrase and readOnlyHint cover the main safety profile.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler; every clause contributes a distinct piece of information about the response. It is appropriate for a simple single-parameter read tool.

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 low-complexity read with no output schema, the description covers the key return categories and a state-dependent edge case (null output while sealed). It omits the meaning of 'sealed' and any error behavior for jobs the agent does not belong to, but an agent can call the tool correctly with the information given.

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 input schema provides only an undocumented `id` string, and the description never explicitly states that this is the job identifier. The phrase 'for a job you are part of' makes that mapping inferable and adds a membership constraint, so it partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage, but not as clearly as a direct parameter explanation would.

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 identifies the resource (a job) and enumerates the returned data: current state, output, payment terms, deadlines, and available_actions. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling for contrast, but the detail level and membership scope make it clearly a single-job retrieval tool.

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 phrase 'for a job you are part of' gives an explicit membership/eligibility constraint, which is useful context. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_jobs, job_receipt, or job_action, nor does it state any when-not conditions.

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