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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds substantial substance: status semantics including the 30-day closed rule and last-seen date, age in days, repost counts, the long_open/reposted signals, the 600-character excerpt cap, a prompt-injection warning about company-authored text, and a data-retention disclosure. That is behavioral context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 first sentence is front-loaded with the essential identification and the return payload is enumerated compactly. The trailing privacy/retention sentence is long and tangential to correct invocation, which costs a point but doesn't obscure the core instruction.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing: the accepted identifier forms, what comes back, and the safety caveat on untrusted text are all present.

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 description already says "apply_url from search_jobs, or its id (ds:…)", so the description's restatement of the same dual-accept value adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter burden here.

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 ("One posting ... by the apply_url ... or by its id") and immediately separates it from the sibling search tool that produces the apply_url. An agent can tell this is the single-item retrieval counterpart to search_jobs without opening either 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?

Clearly implies the call chain — take the apply_url a search returned, or its id — which tells the agent this comes after search_jobs. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. don't loop it over many URLs, use watch_search for ongoing monitoring), so a 4 rather than 5.

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