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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains: facts, salary, description text (often a job brief), and a link to the original advert, which tells the agent what to expect from invoking it.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the lookup key, and the returned fields with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 and complete annotations, the description need not explain return structure, though it helpfully summarizes it anyway. For a simple single-parameter lookup this is nearly complete; only sibling differentiation (fetch) is left unaddressed.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the schema already states it is the job id from search_jobs. The description merely echoes that origin without adding format, length, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one job) with a clear scope (full details of a single job by id), which distinguishes it from the sibling search_jobs. It stops short of naming the other retrieval sibling (fetch) to disambiguate further, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 tool is used after search_jobs to expand a specific result, which is useful workflow context. However, it never states when not to use this tool or how it differs from fetch, leaving the selection guidance implicit.

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