Get a JobBOSS2 report

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

The description warns that the response schema is not defined by the current OpenAPI document, which is important behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It also reinforces the read-only nature by describing retrieval of an existing report. It does not detail error behavior or auth requirements, but the annotation coverage plus the schema caveat puts this above the minimum.

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 definition is two short sentences: the first states the action and key parameter, the second flags a schema limitation. There is no repetition, filler, or unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with idempotence and open-world annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and even notes the undocumented response schema. A small gap is not connecting requestId to the create_report workflow, which would help an agent chain calls correctly. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the only semantic weight for requestId by explaining that the report is retrieved 'by request ID.' This is helpful but minimal; it does not say where the request ID comes from or how to format it. The parameter name itself already suggests its role, so the added value is modest.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get a previously submitted JobBOSS2 report by request ID.' It distinguishes this from report creation by emphasizing 'previously submitted,' and the name itself separates it from the generic jobboss2_get sibling. It could be stronger with an explicit contrast to create_report, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'previously submitted' implies this tool is for retrieving already-created reports, which gives the agent a usable context cue. However, it does not explicitly say to use create_report first, nor does it state when not to use this tool compared to jobboss2_get or other siblings. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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