accelo_get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails to: it does not say what happens on an unknown ID, whether any permissions or scopes are required, or what the response contains. It only conveys the obvious read-by-ID intent.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the core purpose is in sentence one, and the arg list follows. No wasted prose, though the docstring-style args block is a bit skeletal rather than information-dense.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is roughly the minimum viable: both params are named and the purpose is clear, but the ambiguous 'fields' parameter and missing read-side context leave real gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does label both params ('id: Job ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return'). However 'fields' is not explained in any actionable way (format, allowed values, comma separation), so it only marginally exceeds the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (a single job/project), and the retrieval key (by ID). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling accelo_list_jobs, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as accelo_list_jobs or accelo_get_job's related read tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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