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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: it discloses that the comment thread and attachment filenames are returned and that attachments are listed but not downloaded — a genuinely useful behavioral trait. It lacks pagination/limits info, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its details; the second sentence restates the return contents with slight redundancy against the first, but overall it is compact and earns most of its space.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields, comment thread and attachments, plus the auth requirement. It stops short of scope/format details but is adequate for a single-read tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the single job_id param is fully documented in the schema ('Job ID from list_jobs'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (job), and enumerates the returned fields (description, address, customer, stage, labor budget, comments, attachments). 'Returns one job' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_jobs, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch a single job's full detail by ID) rather than stated, and no alternative or when-not condition is given. The mention of required API key access is a helpful prerequisite but not a use-case cue.

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