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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states it fetches 'public details', implying read-only and no authentication, and mentions 'active' as a filter. However, it doesn't disclose behavior for invalid IDs, missing jobs, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple fetch, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists return fields. There is no waste, though it omits parameter clarification. It's efficient but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 fetch tool with one integer parameter and no output schema, the description lists expected return fields, which is helpful. However, it lacks explanation of the job_id parameter, error conditions, or what 'active' means. Overall, it's adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent to call correctly.

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% because the description does not mention the job_id parameter at all. The schema defines job_id as an integer with constraints, but the description adds no meaning about what it represents or how it's used. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'public details for one active Remoote job', listing specific fields like salary, location, skills. It distinguishes from siblings like search_jobs and get_top_jobs by emphasizing 'one active job', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention that it's for retrieving a single job by ID, nor does it suggest alternatives for other scenarios. The context implies use when you have a job_id, but it's not explicit.

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