Job detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by listing the specific data returned, including the computed duration and the ability to read the actual error, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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-loads the resource and its contents, and immediately states the use case. Every word contributes value; there is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema fields already described.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it lists the key fields (state, timestamps, retry counters, expiry/DLQ, duration, payload, output). It also covers the primary use case (reading errors). It does not mention potential error responses or edge cases, but for a simple read-only lookup this is sufficient.

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?

The single parameter jobId is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('as reported by failed_jobs or stuck_jobs'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add more. It adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so a baseline 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 states a specific verb ('read') and a precise resource ('One job's full record') and enumerates the exact fields returned (state, timestamps, retry counters, expiry, DLQ, duration, payload, output). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like failed_jobs or stuck_jobs by framing this as the detail-retrieval tool for a specific 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to read the actual error behind a failure surfaced by another tool,' which tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. It implies alternatives (other tools surface failures) but does not name them or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, though the intent is clear.

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