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 scope context ('stored', 'completed', 'owned') but does not disclose return format, size limits, or whether missing output is handled. No contradiction with 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?

A single, information-dense sentence front-loads the action ('Read') and resource, then adds the key qualifiers 'stored', 'completed', and 'owned'. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-required-parameter read operation with read-only annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential usage context. The only notable gap is that the return representation of stdout and stderr is not described, but this is minor given the simplicity of the tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new semantic detail about job_id or token beyond identifying the operation's target, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('stored stdout and stderr for one completed owned Astrologos job'). It clearly distinguishes this output-fetching tool from siblings like astrologos.abort_job, astrologos.run, and especially astrologos.job_status, which would report status rather than captured output.

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 when to use the tool — only for jobs that are completed and owned — but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative. Context suggests job_status is for status and this tool is for output, but that contrast 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.