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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: no auth for public jobs, access restricted to parties for invite-only jobs, job_not_found for others, and detailed claimer_constraints semantics. This is exactly the kind of visibility and error-behavior disclosure annotations cannot cover.

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 front-loaded with the usage condition and then adds access rules and a precise constraints detail. It is dense but each clause carries operational meaning, though the claimer_constraints sentence is complex enough to slightly slow parsing.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, the schema covers the sole parameter, and the description handles auth and error behavior well. Because there is no output schema, it could say more about what 'full detail' returns, but the operational guidance is otherwise complete.

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 the single job_id parameter and its pattern are already documented. The description refers to fetching 'by id' and mirrors the GET path, but adds no format or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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: 'Fetch a single job by id.' It explicitly differentiates from the sibling list_jobs by framing this as the follow-up for one result. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It opens with an explicit 'When to use' and names the alternative workflow: 'typically after seeing it in list_jobs results.' It also gives conditional access rules for public versus invite-only jobs, which tells the agent when the call may succeed or fail.

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