get_auto_translation_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes 'details and progress', which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior, status values, or pagination. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the required parameter called out in a bullet. There is no filler or redundancy beyond a mild restatement of requiredness, which is harmless for an agent-facing description.

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 one-parameter read-only getter, the description covers purpose, what is returned, and the required argument. There is no output schema, so more detail about the exact response fields would be beneficial, but the high-level 'details and progress' combined with annotations is enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%; the jobId parameter is already documented as 'The auto-translation job ID' with minLength and required. The description merely restates 'Provide jobId (required)', adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 operation ('return details and progress') and a specific resource ('a single auto-translation job'). The word 'single' clearly differentiates it from the plural sibling get_auto_translation_jobs, so an agent can tell them apart without opening 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 phrase 'for a single auto-translation job' gives clear context that this is the one-job retrieval tool, as opposed to listing or creating auto-translation jobs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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