Get Job Errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and idempotence. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Get error details', such as whether the output is paginated or sorted. With annotations providing the core transparency, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not add value but does not contradict either.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise and to the point, but could potentially add a bit more detail without sacrificing brevity (e.g., mentioning pagination). Still, it is efficient and not verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a list of error objects, error count, etc.). It does not. It also omits any mention of pagination behavior despite having pagination parameters. The annotations provide safety info but do not cover return semantics. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, including an 'id' required field and optional pagination controls. The description does not add any additional meaning or context to these parameters (e.g., how sorting applies to errors). Baseline 3 is correct given full schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'error details for a specific job'. The name is explicit and the description matches. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_job_get which might also return job info including errors, but the specificity is adequate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it should be used after a job has failed or to inspect errors, nor does it exclude any scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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