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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the response content (build/deploy config and cron schedule), which gives useful context about what to expect. It doesn't describe any side effects or error behavior, but for a read-only operation this is adequate.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and the key content, then adds the REST endpoint for precision. It is highly efficient and structured for quick comprehension.

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 simple get-by-id tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it states what the tool returns and is unambiguous. It doesn't mention return format details, but that's not essential for a single-job fetch when annotations and schema cover the rest.

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% with both parameters having descriptive text. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool gets details of a single job, and specifies exactly what details are included (build/deploy config and cron schedule). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on jobs, and the REST endpoint reinforces the resource being accessed.

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 usage is implied: when you need job details, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like get_service or get_addon. For a simple getter this is acceptable but could be clearer about exclusion criteria.

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