get_job_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read with no side effects. The description adds the practical constraint that a valid ID must be obtained from list_jobs first. It says nothing further about behavior beyond annotations, such as whether jobs disappear after completion or whether lookup of an unknown ID errors.

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 with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the prerequisite hint. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition covers purpose and ID sourcing adequately. The only gap is that 'details' is unspecified and there is no output schema, so the agent cannot anticipate returned fields such as job status or timestamps.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a UUID format and regex pattern, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only implies that jobId refers to an indexing job and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's own text. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for a specific indexing job.' This clearly distinguishes a single-job detail lookup from collection-level siblings such as list_jobs, and the presence of 'indexing' scopes the domain. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't contrast with other per-item siblings like cancel_job.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: use 'list_jobs' to find the job ID before calling this tool. That is actionable routing guidance for the main ambiguity (where does a jobId come from). There are no when-not-to-use conditions or mention of alternatives such as cancel_job for acting on a job rather than inspecting it.

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