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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the employer description is untrusted text (prompt-injection warning) and closed/excluded jobs are gated behind the caller's own saved job/application/run history. 'Never sends or edits anything' largely repeats the readOnlyHint.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then layering the security and access caveats. Nothing is padded, though the final readOnly restatement is marginally redundant with the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, the untrusted-input risk, and access gating, which is enough for an agent to call this correctly; only the parameter's meaning remains undocumented.

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 0% for the single parameter listing_id, so the schema gives only type and minimum. The description never mentions the parameter, its source, or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap beyond the loose implication that it identifies 'one discovered job.'

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 and resource ('Read one discovered job') plus a secondary payload (application context), and the word 'one' distinguishes it from list/search siblings like search_jobs and list_applications. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the singular scope makes the operation legible.

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?

'before deciding what to do' implies a pre-action read step, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_application, get_matches, or search_jobs, and gives no explicit exclusion guidance, so usage is only implied.

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