erc8183_get_job

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., return format, possible errors, or rate limits). It does not contradict annotations, but it contributes little additional transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary words or redundant information. It earns its place by being clear and direct.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description is sufficient. One could argue that it doesn't list what fields are included in 'job details', but there is no output schema and the tool's purpose is self-evident. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, with both jobId and chainId having meaningful descriptions (e.g., jobId is 'Job ID', chainId defaults to runtime config). The tool description repeats the 'by ID' aspect but does not add further meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and this description does not exceed it.

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 action ('Read') and the target resource ('ERC-8183 job details'), with the lookup key ('by ID'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like erc8183_create_job or erc8183_fund_job by indicating a read operation.

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 implies its usage context: it is the appropriate tool when one needs to fetch details of a specific ERC-8183 job by its ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the naming and read-only nature make the intended usage clear, and no exclusions are needed for such a straightforward getter.

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