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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating the fields returned (useful since there is no output schema) and confirming the read semantics with the GET endpoint. It says nothing about invalid-UUID or not-found behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then lists outputs; the trailing API path is minor extra, but it is compact and confirms the read operation. No filler or redundancy.

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 compensates by summarizing the returned fields, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. Remaining gaps (not-found/error behavior, whether notes/tags are ever omitted) are minor for a simple single-record read.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%: the schema already defines 'uuid' with a concrete example (XYZ56X). The description adds only the fact that the lookup is keyed by UUID, which the schema already conveys, so baseline 3 applies.

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 UUID') and then enumerates the returned payload (schedule, status, client contact/address, totals, amount due, notes, tags, team). This clearly separates it from workiz_list_jobs and workiz_get_lead without needing to open any schema.

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 'by UUID' phrasing implies you need a known job identifier, which implicitly routes single-record lookups here rather than to list_jobs, but no when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative is given. Usage is inferable, not explicit.

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