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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the output is a 'Full sanitized description and structured facets' and that the tool is a prerequisite before recommending a vacancy. It doesn't describe pagination or error behavior, but for a single-resource fetch with strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, when to call it, and how to identify the resource. The most important usage instruction ('Call this before recommending a vacancy') is front-loaded, and the identifier guidance is compact.

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 single-parameter read-only fetch with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It covers the resource, the return value, the call timing, and the accepted identifier forms. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what to do if the id is invalid or not found, but that's not essential for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds value by clarifying that the id can be an integer id, id-slug, or an allowlisted URL (url or click_url), and that click_url comes from search_jobs. This goes beyond the schema's generic description and helps the agent construct valid calls.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('LexGO job detail'), and the key differentiator: it returns a 'Full sanitized description and structured facets' and is the tool to call before recommending a vacancy. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_jobs and get_event.

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 description explicitly says 'Call this before recommending a vacancy' and tells the agent to 'Give the candidate click_url.' It also lists the accepted identifier forms (integer id, id-slug, url, or click_url from search_jobs), which is direct usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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