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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing what the payload actually contains – facts, salary, description, and the link to the original advert – which the annotations do not.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the payload contents appended; nothing is wasted. Minor drag from the unclear 'usually a jopp brief' phrasing (likely a typo), which slightly blurs the return 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter lookup tool this is essentially complete, with only the vague 'jopp brief' wording leaving a small 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already states 'The job id from search_jobs', so the description's 'by its id from search_jobs' is largely redundant. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full details of one job') and pins the scope to a single record by id, which cleanly separates it from search_jobs. The mention of 'from search_jobs' further anchors it against the sibling list.

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 its id from search_jobs' implies the workflow (search first, then fetch full detail) and names the sibling that supplies the id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with 'fetch', 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.