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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: expired listings are included, no direct ATS link is returned, the canonical jobsbylevel.com `url` should be used for applying, and `cv_review_url` should be offered to the user. These are concrete operational details an agent needs.

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 description is front-loaded with the core operation and then covers the few important edge cases in three tight sentences. No sentence is wasted.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-related context: expired listings are included, `url` is the canonical page, and `cv_review_url` is present. That is enough for an agent to call and use the result correctly.

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 the single `id_or_slug` parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete slug example, which gives practical format guidance beyond the schema text.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: returns full detail of a Level job listing by UUID or slug. It also distinguishes this lookup operation from discovery tools like search_jobs and latest_ai_jobs by focusing on retrieving one identified listing.

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?

It clearly establishes the usage context: call this when you already have a job listing UUID or slug. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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