lax get job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds context not in annotations: that the read is free and that bid/PACT terms must be verified before committing to paid work. That is a useful caution beyond the structured data, though pagination/response shape is not discussed.

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 action and returned payload. The second sentence is a bit of a workflow aside but still earns its place by flagging paid-work risk.

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 single-parameter read with full safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the cost model. Only the id parameter's expected value remains underspecified.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description only implies it names a job ('Read one LAX job'). It adds no format, prefix, or sourcing guidance to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 ('Read one') and resource ('LAX job') and enumerates the returned content: specification, budget, deadline, current status. The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from lax_list_jobs, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Free read' gives a cost context and 'Confirm the current bid and PACT requirements with the organizer before starting paid work' gives a workflow precondition. However, it never says when to prefer this over lax_list_jobs or lax_get_offer, so selection guidance is only implied.

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