get_job

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden and does well: it discloses adaptive batch sizing behavior, the different response profiles, and the important guarantee that 'No job is deleted when a supplied job_ids list is truncated'. It does not mention whether authentication or other side effects are involved, but the truncation note conveys a non-destructive read operation.

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?

The description is compact and dense, with every sentence providing actionable information. It front-loads the purpose and then adds parameter behavior, usage advice, and a critical truncation guarantee without filler or repetition.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior: batch sizing, profile-specific limits, and truncation handling. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain the default 'auto' profile or the output structure of summaries versus full descriptions, but these are minor compared to the clarity provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to response_profile with specific counts, links context_window/response_profile to search_jobs, and implies include_description maps to 'full descriptions'. However, it does not explain the 'auto' enum value or the exact semantics of context_window values, which leaves some gaps.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'Details for selected jobs' with adaptive batch sizing, indicating it returns job detail data. It references search_jobs for parameter reuse, which hints at differentiation, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like fetch_job_description or list_stored_jobs, and the opening is a noun phrase rather than a direct verb+resource statement.

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 advice to 'Pass the same context_window/response_profile used for search_jobs' gives concrete context for how to invoke the tool after a search. It also offers strategic guidance ('Request full descriptions only for plausible finalists'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over fetch_job_description or other siblings, nor does it list when not to use it.

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