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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context. It does disclose the substantive contents an agent will see (reward, chain, mm targets, capital at risk, signature requirement, open slots), but says nothing about failure modes for invalid or expired job ids, or whether terms mutate over time.

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 with the resource and id convention front-loaded, followed by an enumerated payload. Dense but every element earns its place; only minor cost is that the parenthetical list reads slightly as a run-on.

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 well by enumerating the term fields returned, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Remaining gaps—id provenance and error behavior—are minor for a one-parameter read tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and it does add one real constraint the schema lacks: ids begin with "aj-", which helps an agent reject wrong-entity ids. It stops short of saying where the id comes from (presumably search_jobs) or the format of the rest of the string.

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: retrieving the full terms of a job on Agent Jobs, with the id-prefix convention ("aj-") anchoring which entity it operates on. It is clearly a detail-fetch counterpart to listing/searching tools, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-claim inspection step because it surfaces reward, capital-at-risk, and claim-slot details, but the description never says when to call it instead of search_jobs or claim_job, nor any prerequisite such as obtaining the id first.

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