Get a job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description does add genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: an errored job surfaces as a tool error (changing how the agent should handle the call) and the operation is free (cost-aware routing). It stops short of describing the status values or whether results appear incrementally.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the returned payload, with the exception cases ('in error', 'for split, classify and workflow') appended compactly. Nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of listing return fields and job-type applicability. The main remaining gap is provenance of job_id and the set of possible status values, which an agent polling a job would benefit from.

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% and job_id is a bare string, so the description carries the explanatory burden; it says only 'one job', implying job_id identifies a single job. It never says where that id comes from (returned by split, classify, run_workflow) or what an invalid/expired id does. Meaning added is real but thin.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one job') and enumerates the returned fields (status, type, error message, results), plus a parenthetical restricting result availability to split, classify and workflow jobs. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby polling sibling wait_for_jobs, which keeps it from a 5.

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 definition implies the usage context (you hold a job_id from a prior async operation) but never states when to call this instead of wait_for_jobs, nor that it is a non-blocking single check. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so the agent must infer the polling pattern.

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