get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what fields are returned (name, owner, active state, linked invoices/bills) which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't specify behavior on invalid/unknown job IDs, error handling, or whether the job must exist. The return-value disclosure is decent but safety/error behavior is unaddressed.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose followed by a returns summary and a short args block. Front-loads the purpose effectively. The returns summary is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it's efficient and not bloated.

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's an output schema present, so describing return values in the description is partly redundant but still helpful as a quick summary. For a single-parameter ID lookup tool, the description covers purpose, return contents, and parameter semantics adequately. It's reasonably complete for a straightforward getter tool.

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% - the schema only shows job_id is a required string with no further meaning. The description compensates well by explaining job_id is the Job ID with an example format ("000001"). This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it could mention more about format constraints.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a job's details by ID, and enumerates what's returned (name, owner, active state, plus linked invoice/bill count and IDs). Among siblings like list_jobs, get_job_report, update_job, it's distinct as the single-job detail fetcher. Verb+resource+scope are all clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_job_report.

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 use when you have a known job_id and need its details, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over get_job_report or list_jobs, nor any exclusions. Context is implied by the args and ID-based naming, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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