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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation and lists the returned data (status, verdict, attestation), but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior if the job is not yet complete. This is adequate but lacks depth beyond the basic read operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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-parameter fetch tool, the description is functionally complete in listing what it returns and that it is for previously submitted jobs. However, it omits usage context such as sequencing with sibling tools, any preconditions like job completion, and does not describe the return format (since no output schema exists). There are clear gaps in operational guidance.

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 schema already documents job_id as 'Job ID returned from evaluator_submit_job.' The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra semantic value.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource: 'evaluation status, verdict, and attestation for a previously-submitted job.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluator_submit_job (submission) and evaluator_attest_job (attestation), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a previously-submitted job' implies that this tool is used after evaluator_submit_job, but it does not explicitly state when to use it as opposed to siblings like evaluator_get_fees or evaluator_attest_job. There is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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