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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-structured context: it needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app, and it specifies the breadth of the returned payload.

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?

The returned-field list is duplicated: once as 'Full job: description, site, tasks, notes, appointments, costs, linked quotes and invoices' and again in the next sentence. It is front-loaded but wastes a whole clause repeating itself.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned, the auth requirement, and the read-before-write purpose. Nothing essential is missing, though return formatting/shape details remain unstated.

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 parameter (job_id) is documented as 'Job ID from list_jobs.' The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, 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 ('Returns one job') and resource, then enumerates the exact sub-resources returned (description, site, tasks, notes, appointments, costs, linked quotes and invoices). This clearly separates it from a list operation, though it never explicitly names a sibling 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?

Gives an explicit usage context: 'Use it before changing a job so your agent sees its current state.' That is a real when-to-use cue (read-before-mutate), but there are no stated exclusions or named alternatives for other cases.

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