Get PJM job statistics

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the completed-job constraint and the two output modes, which are useful behavioral hints. It doesn't describe error behavior or return format, but annotations lower the bar.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler words.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only tool with strong annotations, but it lacks parameter details and return value structure. With no output schema and 0% param coverage, more explanation of 'basic' vs 'node-level' and 'detailed' would make it complete.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, and the description does not explain jobId or detailed. The tool name and description imply jobId references a job, but the exact format and the effect of 'detailed' are not documented.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets statistics for a completed job, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_job (job details) and list_jobs (job lists). The phrase 'basic or node-level' adds specificity.

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 conveys it is for completed jobs, implying it should not be used for running/pending jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast with get_job, so not a perfect 5.

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