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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the breadth of returned data — error messages, timestamps, runner config details, matrix values, dependencies and attempt history — which matters because no output schema exists to reveal the payload shape.

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 front-loaded sentence plus a provenance tag ('Depot: CIService/GetJob'). The parenthetical field enumeration is long but every item is informative rather than filler, and nothing is padded with generic prose.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates the return surface that would otherwise be invisible to the agent. The missing piece is any indication of when to prefer this over its log/diagnosis siblings, but that is a routing gap rather than an incompleteness of the tool's contract.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage) including its origin in depot_ci_get_run_status. The description adds nothing about job_id, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema carries the entire burden here.

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 and resource ('Get one Depot CI job') and then enumerates exactly what the response contains (status, conclusion, error, runner config, matrix, dependencies, attempt history). This field list implicitly separates it from depot_ci_get_job_logs and depot_ci_get_failure_diagnosis, which return different payloads, but no sibling is named outright.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing in the description. The only routing hint ('from depot_ci_get_run_status') lives in the schema's job_id description rather than the tool description, so the description itself offers no usage guidance.

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