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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds auth requirements (Cotlet API key with access to this app), the exact shape of the returned object, and the labor-enabled flag on phases. Rich for a get tool, though no pagination/size or freshness caveats are given.

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 entity, but the first sentence is a fragmentary field dump that the next sentence partly repeats ('Returns one job with its contract lines, change orders and phases'). The redundancy costs it a point, though nothing is truly wasted.

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 single-record read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the returned contents, auth needs and downstream ID usage – enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps (no note on missing/not-found behavior or field volume) keep it from 5.

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 schema itself documents job_id ('Job ID from list_jobs'). The description adds no format, prefix, or lookup syntax beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Get job') and enumerates the exact payload (client, jobsite address, contract style, contract lines, change orders, phases), which is far more than the title. The singular scope ('One job') cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling knowify_list_jobs.

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?

Explicitly routes downstream usage: contract line and change order IDs feed create_invoice, phase IDs feed log_time – genuinely useful sequencing context. It never states a when-not condition or names list_jobs as the prerequisite source, so it stops short of full routing.

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