Get Job Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the scope of returned data, but it does not state behavior for missing/invalid identifiers or whether both parameters can be supplied.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose, identifiers, and response contents without filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 single-fetch tool with strong annotations and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and how to identify the job; no output schema exists, so listing the included sections is especially useful.

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 100%: job_id and job_number are clearly described as alternatives in the input schema. The description simply restates this 'internal ID or display number' relationship and adds no new parameter meaning.

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 and resource: 'Get complete details for a single job' by internal ID or display number. It also enumerates the returned content (techs, tasks, notes, charges, visit history), which clearly distinguishes it from broader search/list siblings like search_jobs or get_customer_jobs.

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 context is implied: use this when you need full details for one known job via job_id or job_number. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives such as using search_jobs first to find the ID.

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