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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and uses it well: it reveals that recently expired listings are included and that no direct ATS link is ever returned. It also instructs the agent to use the returned canonical url for applying, which is behavior an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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 sentences with no filler; the core purpose comes first and the ATS caveat earns its place. A model and clear example are woven in without bloating the description.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers input format, the expired-listing edge case, and expected link semantics. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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?

The schema already documents id_or_slug at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete slug example and clarifies that both UUID and slug forms are valid, which helps an agent construct the parameter value correctly.

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?

Describes a specific operation — retrieving the full detail of a job listing — and identifies the exact identifiers accepted (UUID or slug). The mention of including expired listings and canonical URL helps distinguish it from search-oriented siblings such as search_jobs.

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 description makes clear this is the tool for fetching a single known listing by UUID or slug rather than for discovery. It does not explicitly name search_jobs or state when not to use it, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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