Get recurring job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, which is helpful but not explicit. It does not disclose behavior such as whether a missing job returns an error or what the response contains.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence plus a documentation link. Every part earns its place, and nothing is redundant or padded.

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 get operation, the description is adequately complete: it states what is fetched and by what key, and it provides a docs link. It lacks return format or not-found behavior, but those are minor for this straightforward read action.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by name' confirms that the required 'name' parameter is the recurring job identifier, but it adds little beyond the parameter name itself and offers no format or uniqueness details.

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 action and resource: 'Get a single recurring job by name.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling list/create/update/delete tools by emphasizing 'single' and 'by name.' The title is reinforced without being merely tautological.

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 'by name' gives clear retrieval context: this is the tool to use when you already know the recurring job's name and need one object. It does not explicitly name alternatives like recurringjob_list or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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