lax_get_job

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a read operation and a free one, but it does not cover behavior for a missing or malformed id, authentication requirements, or any other operational detail beyond the basic operation type.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is slightly telegraphic but every element contributes information about what is read and the free cost model.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: that it returns one job's specification, acceptance criteria, ceiling and dates, and that the read is free. It could be more complete by mentioning error behavior or explicit routing from lax_list_jobs, but the core is covered.

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 single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as a server-URL-encoded registry identifier, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further meaning about the id beyond what the schema already provides, which fits the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one job') and enumerates the fields surfaced (specification, acceptance criteria, ceiling, dates). It implicitly distinguishes itself from lax_list_jobs by emphasizing a single job, but it never names the sibling tool, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 'Free read' signals that retrieval is costless, which is useful context for choosing this tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus lax_list_jobs or the other siblings, nor does it describe any prerequisites or exclusions.

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