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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description discloses the JOB_NOT_FOUND condition, the meaning of a null salary, what salary_note refers to, and that applications happen on the returned url with no personal data flowing through the connector. That is real behavioral context the annotations cannot convey, though it omits any note on output shape or caching/freshness of postings.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries information (error semantics, null semantics, privacy). The long semicolon-chained middle sentence and the trailing "API v3." fragment make it denser and less scannable than it could be.

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 takes on the job of describing return content and does so at a high level (tasks, skills, benefits, apply url, salary fields) while also covering the failure mode. It is adequate for a two-parameter read tool, with only minor gaps in enumerating the returned fields.

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 both parameters (job_id pattern, lang enum with default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior or format, so the 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?

"One open position with its full description (tasks, skills, what we offer) and the page to apply on" names a specific resource plus the payload it returns, which is clearly distinct from a listing tool. It never names list_jobs as the multi-result counterpart, so the agent must infer the boundary from the singular "One open position".

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 required job_id plus the parenthetical error case "JOB_NOT_FOUND: the position is not open (any more)" make the retrieval context explicit and tell the agent what a failure means. There is no explicit exclusion or pointer to an alternative sibling (e.g. list_jobs to discover ids), which keeps it short of a 5.

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