move_get_job

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the asynchronous behavior, the specific lifecycle states, and typical processing duration. This materially helps the agent understand what to expect and that polling is appropriate, with no contradiction against 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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence adding useful information: the core action, the returned state fields, and the polling behavior. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 read-only polling tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the resource, the key returned aspects, the states, and the correct calling pattern. The expand parameter's behavior is already documented in the schema, so no further return-value explanation is needed.

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 only 50%: expand is documented, but job_id only has a title and no meaningful schema description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining job_id's role or format, even though 'Fetch a job' implies it identifies the job.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a job') and adds the distinctive focus on state and percentage progress. It is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like move_list_jobs or mention that it operates on a single job_id.

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 gives explicit guidance to poll instead of blocking and sets expectations that processing takes minutes, which tells the agent when to call it. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, 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.