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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the REST endpoint (GET /jobs/{id}) and the fact that custom fields are opt-in; it says nothing about return shape, not-found behavior, or auth requirements. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the core action; the endpoint fragment is the only arguably redundant element and it is minimal. No padding or hedging.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, this is close to sufficient: it conveys the resource, the optional expansion, and a return hint ('One job'). The only gap is that with no output schema the agent gets no sense of what a job record contains or what error surface to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's 'optionally with its custom field values' merely restates with_custom_fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work and the description adds no format or default detail.

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 ('One job by id') plus the optional custom-field expansion, which clearly distinguishes it from bulk listing. It doesn't explicitly name fieldpulse_list_jobs or fieldpulse_get_job's other siblings, but the singular-by-id framing makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a job id and needs the record. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of the list_jobs alternative, and no note on behavior when the id is unknown.

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