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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds value: it discloses the returned content set and clarifies that folder_id is where pulled items sit and that the record carries a version required for updates. It stops short of error/not-found behavior, but for a single read that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence plus an endpoint mapping; every clause carries return-field information. The 'Sortly: GET /api/v1/jobs/{job_id}' tail is mildly redundant but cheap.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and returned fields. Only explicit sibling routing and error behavior are missing.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents job_id fully. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single job') and enumerates the notable fields returned (status, folder_id, dates, notes, custom fields, version). Scope 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the list_jobs sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 required job_id, and the phrase 'the version needed for updates' hints that this is called before an update, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to list_jobs / get_item alternatives.

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