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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new context: the underlying API route (GET /api/v0/jobs/{id}) and the { meta, response } return envelope, which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of documenting auth needs, error behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then API mapping, then return shape. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 read-by-id tool, the description covers purpose, endpoint, and the return envelope, which compensates for the absent output schema. Only minor details (auth, error cases) are unstated, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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 id and fields are fully documented in the schema and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the 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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a single job/project), and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the list_jobs sibling. It clarifies the domain term by equating 'job' with 'project', but never names list_jobs explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but 'Fetch a single job' plus the required id parameter implies the retrieval-by-identifier case versus the listing case. Usage is implied rather than directed, and no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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