authoring-get-job

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotation: the returned fields and the mutual-exclusion rule ('exactly one of jobName or handle'). Missing details like error behavior when neither/both are supplied, but the added context exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, usage context, and the parameter constraint, front-loaded and free of filler. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it does, why you'd call it, what it returns, and how to disambiguate the inputs. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by stating the exactly-one-of constraint between jobName and handle — the schema lists both as optional with no such rule — so it earns above baseline.

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 (Reads), a precise resource (one Sitecore background job), the transport (Authoring and Management API), and the lookup keys (name or handle). It also declares what the return contains (state, progress, messages), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling list-style tools like authoring-list-jobs.

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?

Gives a clear use-case: 'This is how you find out whether an index rebuild or other queued operation finished.' That tells the agent when to reach for it. It does not name alternatives (e.g. authoring-list-jobs) or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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