Get Job

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by using 'Retrieve'. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (status, type, params, info/progress, timestamps), which is useful behavioral context about the response beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP endpoint, and includes all essential information without fluff. Every sentence contributes meaning: the purpose and the return value.

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-resource getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the endpoint, purpose, parameter, and expected return content. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand the response.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description 'The unique ID of the job to retrieve' is clear and self-sufficient. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve a single job by its unique ID' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_jobs (plural), create_job, update_job, and cancel_job by explicitly targeting a single job retrieval by ID.

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 usage is implied by the description—use this when you have a job ID and need full details—but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention list_jobs for discovering jobs or create/update/cancel for mutations, so the guidance remains implicit.

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