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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is free to add real value — namely that this returns only 'basic facts' and that the job page link leads to the official advert for full details. That sets expectations on completeness of the payload, a useful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 that front-loads the action and key, then the return shape. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the fields plus the outbound link. It omits edge-case behavior (invalid or expired slug), which keeps it from a 5.

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 schema already documents the slug as 'A job slug from search_jobs', which the description only restates. No extra semantics (format, casing, failure on bad slug) are added, so baseline 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 verb (get), resource (one current job) and lookup key (slug), then enumerates the fields returned. An agent can distinguish it from search_jobs and list_employers immediately.

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?

Makes the dependency explicit: the slug must come from search_jobs, so the intended workflow is clear. It does not spell out when not to use this vs. search_jobs, but for a detail-fetch tool the routing is essentially unambiguous.

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