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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the item must be public (so private/non-public ids will not resolve) and the id must carry one of three supported prefixes. Error handling for unsupported prefixes is left unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint clause appended. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile, the description does not need to explain return values. For a one-parameter read tool it is nearly complete; only the failure mode for an unsupported prefix is 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% and the sole parameter is documented as the result id returned by search, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying the accepted id prefix syntax (job:, formation:, company:), which is real added meaning the schema does not carry.

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 (fetch) and resource (public WeJob item) scoped by id, and the prefix list (job:, formation:, company:) signals that this is the generic, multi-type getter rather than one of the type-specific siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming wejob_get_job/company/formation as alternatives, but an agent can still distinguish it.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the three type-specific getters or the search tool; the only implicit hint is the supported-prefix list. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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