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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description's contribution is its enumeration of the returned data (error message, timestamps, runner config, matrix values, attempt history), which tells the agent what behavioral detail the call surfaces. It omits error/not-found behavior and any data-freshness caveats, but goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packs the purpose and the returned detail with no filler, followed by a short service reference. The 'Depot: CIService/GetJob' suffix is internal plumbing an agent cannot act on, which slightly dilutes the otherwise tight composition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and its field list does that reasonably well for a single-job fetch. It does not cover the shape or nesting of nested config objects (labels, matrix values) or any failure mode, leaving some gaps.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents job_id and its provenance. The description adds no format, length, or sourcing detail for the parameter, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one Depot CI job') and then enumerates the fields returned (status, conclusion, runner config, matrix values, dependencies, attempt history), which makes the scope concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest siblings (depot_ci_get_run_status, depot_ci_get_job_logs), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The only hint about how this tool fits a workflow lives in the schema's job_id description ('from depot_ci_get_run_status'), which is structured-field content, not part of this text.

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