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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that related data is embedded only when requested, which is useful, but says nothing about behavior on a nonexistent job number, auth requirements, or response 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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. The trailing 'Kickserv: GET /{account}/jobs/{job_number}.xml' is borderline noise for an agent, but it is short and does not obscure the primary statement.

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-record fetch with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers what is retrieved and what can be embedded. Only edge-case behavior (missing job, permissions) is absent, which is a minor gap.

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 parameters are already documented. The description repeats the include list that the schema's enum already enumerates, adding no new syntax, cost, or interaction 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+resource+scope: fetch exactly one job by job number, with an enumerated set of optional embeds. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kickserv_list_jobs and kickserv_list_customer_jobs, which return collections.

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 singular 'one job by job number' implies usage versus list tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative. An agent must infer the routing from the wording rather than being told.

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