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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds the API route and the fact that related entities can be embedded, which is mildly useful, but says nothing about pagination, auth, or error behavior.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the embed options following. The trailing REST endpoint reference is dispensable but short enough not to harm readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the entities that can be returned via embeds, which tells an agent what a response may contain. Still, it omits any statement of what the base response looks like when no embeds are requested.

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 job_number and include are already fully documented in the schema. The description's list of embeddable resources merely restates the enum values, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Fetch one job by job number') and scopes it to a single record, clearly distinguishing it from the plural sibling kickserv_list_jobs. The enumeration of optional related data further pins down what the call returns.

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 implied by the 'one job' vs list distinction, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to request embeds vs calling the dedicated list_* tools (e.g. list_job_notes), and no prerequisites mentioned.

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