flowspeech_get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden: it does disclose the read-only nature ('without creating a recording') and the exactly-one-ID constraint, which is useful. But it omits auth requirements, what happens if the ID is unknown, and whether the returned job may still be in progress, which matters for a job-status tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and the key constraint, with zero waste.

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 2-param read tool this is close, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should say more about what a job read returns (status fields?) and error behavior for unknown IDs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that job_id is the job UUID, request_id is the caller-known request UUID, and that exactly one must be supplied (matching the oneOf). It adds genuine semantics the schema lacks, though it doesn't clarify format or how to obtain each ID.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('an existing job'), and names both lookup keys. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling TTS tools by saying 'without creating a recording', though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 'without creating a recording' implies this is the non-mutating lookup path, which hints at when to use it versus flowspeech_tts. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of flowspeech_new_request_id as the source of request_id, and no stated alternative.

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