acp_get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what data is returned (phase, participants, budget, memos with status). However, it claims 'full memo history' without disclosing that the memoLimit parameter (default 100) can cap the number of memos returned, which is a minor transparency gap beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then elaborating with specific output details. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (phase, participants, budget, memos with status). It also provides enough context about the ACPRouter domain. It could additionally mention default behaviors for memoLimit and chainId, but these are covered in the schema, so the description is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so parameters are fully documented there. The description does not add much beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing jobId and hinting at memo history. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('job details and full memo history from the Virtuals ACPRouter'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like erc8183_get_job by naming the ACPRouter context and enumerates key returned fields (phase, participants, budget, memos with status), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 (specifically for ACPRouter jobs) and implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The naming and context are sufficient for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage among the many sibling tools, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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