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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, and the description adds useful context about authentication via X-Api-Key and what is returned as status and results. It still does not cover error behavior or polling guidance, but it substantially supplements the annotations.

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 description is three concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by return behavior and authentication.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the status and result content plus authentication. It lacks guidance on error cases or whether the caller should poll, but the core usage context is present.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does address both: job_id identifies the search job and api_key is sent as the X-Api-Key header. It does not specify job_id format, and it calls the API key required even though the schema marks it optional/nullable, leaving a minor ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve a search job by job ID, including details and results. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings such as search_jobs or job.

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 by the need to retrieve a search job using its job ID. The description adds the API key requirement, but it does not state when to use this instead of alternatives like search_jobs or how to handle incomplete jobs.

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