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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine non-structured context: no job description body is returned, the source page must be fetched via another tool, and closed_at/last_checked gate a decision. It stops short of noting staleness or null-field behavior, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, how it differs from search, and what to check before acting. Scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return-field enumeration is unnecessary, and the description still covers the gaps an agent needs: field exclusions, the decision-relevant last_checked/closed_at hints, and the out-of-band step for the source page. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter read tool.

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 single job_id parameter already documents its format with an example ('gh:stripe:1234567'). The description adds no further parameter syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 for schema-does-the-work 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 (a job) and enumerates the returned fields: metadata, original posting and application URLs, latest known status. It also explicitly scopes out what is NOT returned ('No job description is returned'), which separates it from search_jobs without the agent opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('use this to refresh one record') plus a when-not ('Search already includes these fields'), and adds a pre-flight condition ('Check closed_at and last_checked before applying'). The alternative path for the source page is named ('needs a separate web tool').

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