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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond that, merely noting 'detailed info' without explaining return format or any edge-case behavior. No contradiction exists.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

Despite being a simple read tool with good annotations, the description lacks critical context about parameter semantics and return value details. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the agent is left with ambiguous parameters and an under-specified notion of 'detailed info'. The description is too sparse to be considered 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 0%, leaving all three parameters (extra, item_id, getcustomfields) undocumented. The description only implies that item_id identifies the specific print job, but does not explain the meaning or purpose of extra or getcustomfields, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get detailed info for a specific print job' clearly specifies the verb (get), the resource (print job), and the scope (specific vs. list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_print_jobs by emphasizing 'specific' and 'detailed info', 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 description implies usage for retrieving details of a single print job, but does not explicitly state when to use it compared to alternatives like list_print_jobs or get_queue_item. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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