job_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context by noting that appointments and technicians are included, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only nor mention any potential side effects or prerequisites. For a simple retrieval, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence gives usage guidance without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no enums) and the existence of an output schema that describes return values, the description covers the essential context. It explains what the tool does and when to use an alternative. It lacks information on error handling or edge cases, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation. The only parameter, job_id, is self-explanatory by name and type, and the description implies its role by stating it returns 'one job'. However, it does not provide additional detail such as acceptable formats or source of the ID. The meaning is clear enough, but more explicit description would be better.

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 returns a single job with its appointments and assigned technicians. It distinguishes this from the sibling tool find_jobs, which handles multiple jobs, making the purpose 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 second sentence explicitly provides guidance on when to use find_jobs instead, listing examples like a customer's list, date range, or status. This effectively differentiates the tool from its sibling and prevents misuse.

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