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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond annotations: events are ordered, and results are only present when the job is terminal, including revision and artifact download URLs.

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?

A single sentence packs the core action, the exact queryable data, and the terminal-condition nuance without filler or redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the endpoint returns, including the terminal-only results qualification, so an agent can correctly invoke it and interpret the response without additional context.

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 the jobId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no independent parameter-level information beyond referring to 'a job', which is acceptable given the schema already explains the durable ID semantics.

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 names a specific action ('Get') and resource ('a job'), then enumerates exactly what the tool returns: status, progress, ordered events, and terminal results. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobs_list or job_report, which an agent can infer are broader or differently scoped.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a caller needs a job's status, progress, ordered events, or terminal results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the precise return-value list makes intended usage apparent relative to siblings.

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