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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing what the response contains (full advert text, requirements, optional salary, link), which is helpful given there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior or missing-posting handling.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the input and scope, followed by a colon-separated list of return contents. Every element earns its place with no 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?

For a low-complexity, one-parameter read tool, the description is complete: annotations carry the safety profile, the schema documents the sole parameter, and the description covers return values in the absence of an output schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the single postingId parameter is documented in the schema as 'The postingId search_jobs returned.' The description reinforces the same source but adds no format or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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 resource ('one job'), the key input ('postingId'), and enumerates the return payload (full text, requirements, salary, link). The reference to 'from search_jobs' distinguishes it from the sibling search_jobs tool, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the 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 clear context by noting the postingId comes from search_jobs, which implies the workflow prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative siblings (e.g., correct_fact, why_not), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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