get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds value by specifying the response contents (status, staff, schedule, line items), but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a read operation, the 'Get' verb implies non-mutating behavior, but the description is not exhaustive.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key details. No redundant or filler content.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a good sense of the response by listing four key detail categories. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the full return structure or the scope of 'full detail'.

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 id parameter already has a clear description with an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating 'by id', so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the action (Get), the specific resource (Jobber job by id), and enumerates the included details (status, assigned staff, schedule, line items). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client and get_invoice, which target different resources.

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: use when you have a job id and need the full job detail. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the context is fairly clear given the sibling tools for other resource types.

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