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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered externally. The description adds only the word 'current', hinting at a point-in-time snapshot useful for polling, but it says nothing about error behavior for unknown jobIds or what status values exist.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 should carry the return shape, and it does not — the possible job statuses an agent would need to interpret the result are absent. For a trivial one-parameter read tool this is a noticeable but not fatal gap.

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% and the single jobId parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its provenance in job_create/job_list). The description's 'by jobId' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 (read), resource (job), and scope ('one job by jobId'), which implicitly separates it from the list-oriented sibling proofable_job_list. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can tell CRUD-get apart from job_create/job_list/job_cancel.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement: nothing about using this to poll a job created by proofable_job_create or listed by proofable_job_list, nor any condition for preferring it over proofable_job_list. Usage is only weakly inferable from the parameter name.

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