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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond them: no charge, and the side effect that calling it may wake an existing local execution.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The returned-field list is front-loaded and the cost/side-effect caveat follows where it belongs.

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 burden of describing the return, and it enumerates the key fields well. Safety is covered by annotations; the only real gap is guidance on where job_no comes from and its relationship to resume/list tools.

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?

Only one parameter (job_no) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains its format or provenance (e.g. obtained from create/quote). The name is largely self-evident and 'your job' hints at ownership, but the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 payload the agent will receive (status, progress, credits used, price snapshot, errors, resume availability). It clearly reads as a single-job lookup distinct from list_export_jobs, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 description implies a polling/status-check use case and flags that the call is free and may wake a local execution, which is useful cost/effect context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like list_export_jobs or resume_export_job, so the routing is left to inference.

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