Get job

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already declaring safety, the description adds valuable return-content transparency: customer, contact, site address, staff, tasks, notes, Scheduler appointments with UTC offset, costs, and linked quotes/invoices. It does not discuss error behavior or permissions, but it substantially exceeds the annotation-level disclosure.

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 front-loaded with a useful summary and then expands into detail. There is some redundancy between "Full job: ..." and "Returns one job: ...", but the overall structure is readable and not excessive.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and adds the key workflow instruction to read the job before changing it. No essential calling information appears to be missing.

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 sole parameter is documented as "Job ID from list_jobs." The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, 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 gives a specific verb/resource ("Returns one job") and enumerates the job data returned, so its purpose is clear. It distinguishes itself implicitly from list_jobs by emphasizing a single full job, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 provides one workflow cue: "Read it before changing a job." That is useful context, but it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as list_jobs or update_job_status, so selection guidance is only partially covered.

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