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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the default response shape, the extra fields included (description, currentness, stale, last_checked_at, linked postings), and what view: full expands to.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the default-shape sentence is dense but every clause carries information about what is returned. Slightly list-like but appropriately sized for a read tool with three parameters.

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 explaining return values and does so for both the compact default and the full view. Minor gap: it does not state error behavior for an unknown job_id, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 67% and the schema already documents view and fields, but the description reinforces the compact-vs-full distinction and the guarantee that job_id is always included, which helps an agent reason about the fields projection without cross-referencing the enum.

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 ('Get a job by job_id') and immediately positions the result relative to the sibling search_jobs ('Default shape matches search_jobs, plus...'), so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Gives clear guidance on when to use view: "full" versus fields for picking top-level properties, and implies search_jobs is the discovery path. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use search_jobs to obtain a job_id', so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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