get_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes '[tier: readonly-owner]' which signals a read-only operation and ownership scope — helpful security context. However, it doesn't describe the return structure, pagination behavior, or error cases. The tier tag adds value but the details of what 'full details' includes are not fully specified.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first states purpose with scope, the second gives the REST mapping and tier annotation. Every word earns its place.

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 single-resource GET with one self-explanatory parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It notes the tier (readonly-owner) and includes line items and schedule scope. Could mention what happens when job_id is invalid, but for a straightforward fetch the description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but there's only one parameter (job_id) which is self-describing. The description says 'for a single job' and maps to GET /jobs/{id}, which implies job_id is the path identifier. The schema provides the parameter name; the description provides minimal additional semantics, but for a single obvious parameter this is adequate.

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 it gets 'full details for a single job, including line items and schedule' — specific verb (get) + resource (job) + scope (full details). It maps to GET /jobs/{id} which disambiguates the single-resource fetch from siblings like list_jobs. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools, but the job resource is clear.

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 implies usage: fetch full details for a job. The sibling list_jobs vs get_job contrast is implied (list vs single). However, there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives named for when a user should use a more targeted tool like list_job_line_items instead of get_job for a single fragment.

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