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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description 'Get a job by id or alias' is consistent with these, showing no contradiction. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotations (e.g., whether includes expand the response or if authorization is needed), so the burden is satisfied but only at a baseline level.

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?

The description is a single sentence 'Get a job by id or alias.' with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and the lookup key. There is no filler or ambiguity.

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 simple GET tool with annotations already covering read-only safety and a fully documented schema, the description is sufficiently complete. The omission of explicit return-value details is minor, but the tool information is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could mention that the response is the job object or that the 'include' param controls embedded data.

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 parameters are already fully described by the schema ('id: Job id or alias'; 'include: Embed: workflow, hiring_team, pipeline_stages'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but because the schema carries the full load, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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' and resource 'job' with lookup identifier 'id or alias'. It is clear and unambiguous, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like hires_get_career_job or hires_list_jobs, so it loses some points for lack of sibling distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use list_jobs to find multiple jobs' or name a specific alternate, and there is no mention of exclusions or preconditions. The use case is merely implied by the phrase 'by id or alias'.

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