Get job

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the redaction model in detail: which fields are withheld without include_contact_details, that bank/card/payment data is never returned, and the important nuance that free-text names and street addresses are NOT redacted even when the flag is off. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know before interpreting results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by the return contents and then the caveat. Sentence two is long and dense but every clause carries distinct information; the closing API-path note is slightly redundant but harmless.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description compensates well by enumerating return contents and the redaction rules, so an agent knows what to expect back. It is only marginally short of complete: it does not mention error or not-found behavior, and the endpoint reference is the least useful part.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the precise scope of what include_contact_details un-redacts in text (emails, phone numbers, postcodes, coordinates) versus what stays exposed regardless (free-text names and addresses). That is genuine semantic value beyond the schema's 'Include the job location and personal fields' phrasing.

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 ('One job by ID') and enumerates the returned content (description, status, type, priority, dates, allocation, history, job data), which clearly separates it from the sibling list_jobs and the list_* utilities. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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 'One job by ID' framing implies the single-record retrieval context versus the sibling list_jobs, but the description never states when to prefer this over list_jobs or what to do when the ID is unknown/not found. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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