IMD job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: it is experimental with no warranty, and setting report=true triggers a second request to /jobs/{id}/report.md. However, it says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or what the base job response contains.

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?

It is short and the endpoint info is present, but the opening is redundant ('Experimental: Experimental') and the disclaimer consumes about half the text before the substantive endpoint description, which is less than optimal front-loading.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the job object returns; it only covers the optional markdown report. The experimental warning plus route is enough to call the tool, but the response shape is left implicit.

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 both jobId and report are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only restates the report flag's effect (fetches report.md) without adding format, size, or availability semantics.

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 the underlying route (GET /jobs/{id}) and a conditional extra fetch, which implies retrieving a job's details, but it never states a plain verb+resource purpose like 'fetch job status'. The Experimental boilerplate occupies most of the text, so the actual purpose is only implied through the HTTP path.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus siblings such as imd_order_status, imd_check, or imd_schedules. The only guidance is generic caution ('read the code, start with small amounts'), which does not route the agent between tools.

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