Get a job request

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the response contents, but it does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, or any other non-obvious traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured: a short identifying opener followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields and the intended use case. No filler or redundant content is present.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, the description adequately covers the return value and use case. There is no output schema, so the explicit list of fields helps compensate. It stops short of noting potential error conditions, but given the low complexity this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including that it accepts a UUID or short_code. The description does not need to add parameter detail and does not go beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'job request' and then details the contents of the returned work order (status, duration, schedule, customer contact, technician/crew). This makes the tool's purpose clear and helps distinguish it from listJobRequests or getJobRequestTimeline, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 'everything a dispatcher or an external field-operations system needs to track one job' implies this is the go-to tool for retrieving a single job request's full details. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over getJobRequestTimeline or listJobRequests, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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