get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context by disclosing the Workflow module dependency and the returned detail fields, and 'Get' signals read-only. It does not cover error behavior when the ID is unknown or whether jobs from other modules are visible.

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?

Two tight clauses with zero waste: the core action and scope come first, and the module prerequisite follows. Every phrase 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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the resource, the returned fields, and the module prerequisite. Only error/not-found behavior is left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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% for the single job_id parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning and type. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 ('Get a single job by ID') and enumerates the detail returned (status, customer, dates, billing). This clearly separates it from search_jobs and list_job_tasks, though it never names those siblings 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?

The 'Requires the Workflow module' clause is a genuine prerequisite, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_jobs (single known ID) or list_job_tasks. Usage is only implied by 'single job by ID'.

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