get_job_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait — that the call is valid for in-progress as well as finished jobs, unlike a status-only or results-only endpoint. It says nothing about permissions, behavior on an unknown job_id, or whether the payload is truncated for large jobs, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 sentences, no boilerplate, and the payload contents are front-loaded before the lifecycle caveat. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return contents (regions, cluster types, download links, statistics) and covering the running/completed distinction. It is close to complete for a two-parameter read tool, with only error and permission behavior left unstated.

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%, with job_id documented and server_type carrying a three-value enum plus a default, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, validation, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 detailed information about an antiSMASH job') and enumerates the content surfaced: detected regions, cluster types, download links, summary statistics. The added 'Works for both running and completed jobs' meaningfully separates it from the status/lifecycle siblings, though it never names check_job_status or get_job_results to make the boundary explicit.

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 phrase 'Works for both running and completed jobs' implies when the tool is applicable across the job lifecycle, which is useful context. However, no sibling is named and there is no when-not guidance, so an agent must infer on its own how this differs from check_job_status, get_job_results, or download_results.

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