get_job_report

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: drafts are included with billed + outstanding and paid=0, totals are currency-keyed, and per-invoice breakdowns are returned. This gives an agent an accurate model of what the report contains and how numbers are computed.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the tool's purpose, the second paragraph adds behaviorally important details about currencies and drafts, and the Args line is minimal but useful. No redundant prose or filler.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return shape details are already covered elsewhere. The description supplies the missing context: what the totals key on, how drafts are treated, the per-invoice breakdown, and the one parameter's format. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 only provides the name and type for job_id, so the description carries the burden at 0% schema coverage. The description adds a brief semantic explanation and an example ('Job ID (e.g., "000001")'), which is sufficient for a single simple required parameter.

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 names a specific resource ('Per-job summary') and precise metrics ('billed / paid / outstanding totals across all linked invoices, plus the per-invoice breakdown'). This clearly separates it from sibling report tools like get_budget_report or vendor_spending_report without needing to inspect schemas.

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 makes the intended context clear: this is the job-level invoice report, including draft and posted invoices. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_budget_report, so it falls short of full routing guidance, but the scope is unmistakable.

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