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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: only "public active" offers are returned, which signals preconditions and what an agent can expect for inactive or private ids.

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 no waste; the fetch action and the id-format clarification are packed without redundancy.

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 annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema handling return values, the definition covers everything needed to call it correctly. Only the behavior on a nonexistent/inactive id is left implicit.

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% so the single id parameter is already documented. The description still adds meaning by specifying the accepted id forms (raw id or job:<id>), which the schema's "Public job id." does not convey.

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 precise verb+resource ("Fetch one public active WeJob job offer") and scopes it to a single record, making it distinguishable from the singular/plural search siblings. It does not name a specific alternative tool, so full sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Clear context for use: single-offer lookup by id, with the id sourcing path spelled out ("raw id or the job:<id> returned by search/fetch"). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, 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.