Look up one job

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description reveals the lookup order: live update feed first, then recent history. It also discloses the recency limitation that causes older jobs to fail, which is valuable operational context.

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?

Four short sentences, with the core purpose and return value stated first, followed by lookup behavior and limitations. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple read tool with rich annotations and fully described parameters, this covers purpose, return content, and an important failure condition. It does not explicitly describe error behavior when a job is absent, but the recency caveat largely covers that.

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%, and the schema already documents job_id as a UUID and include_raw as a boolean. The description only adds 'by id' and the return fields, so it does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the baseline.

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?

Clearly states a read-only lookup of a single job by id and lists what is returned: status and image URLs. This differentiates it from list_jobs, wait_for_job, and other job-related sibling tools.

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?

Gives a concrete applicability boundary: only jobs still in the account's recent feed can be resolved, and older work must go to the web app. It does not explicitly name sibling MCP tools as alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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