get_job_status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond by naming the auth requirement (GOHIREHUMANS_AUTH_TOKEN or read-scoped API key) and spelling out per-mode visibility rules (employer/worker/admin for orders; public while accepting applications, then owner/applicants/hired worker/admin for jobs).

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?

Opens with the one-line purpose, then branches cleanly by parameter. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint (auth scope, visibility, ID source, collision warning, precedence) with no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields for each mode (status, amount, worker/employer names, milestone amounts/statuses; job status, budget, application count). Auth, permissions and parameter disambiguation are all covered, so nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the provenance of each ID, the fact that the two ID spaces are independent, and the precedence rule when both are supplied. This is exactly the ambiguity a schema alone cannot resolve.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check one order or one job post by ID') and immediately distinguishes the two lookup modes. An agent can tell this apart from sibling readers like get_pricing_info or get_service_details without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: order_id traverses from hire_worker, job_id from create_job or browse_jobs. It also resolves the ambiguity case ('if both are given, order_id is used') and warns that orders and jobs are numbered separately, so the same integer can refer to both.

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