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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by specifying what the returned payload contains (pay as published, freshness, employer description) in the absence of an output schema; it does not mention behavior on unknown or expired job_ids.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and key, then the returned contents. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing return-content orientation an agent would otherwise lack. It leaves minor gaps around failure modes for invalid or stale job_ids.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds a second valid provenance for the value (check_posting) beyond the schema's note that it comes from search_jobs. It still adds no format or constraint detail for job_id.

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 retrieval verb and resource (one posting, in full) keyed on job_id, and enumerates the payload dimensions (requirements, pay as published, freshness, employer description). This is clearly distinguishable from search_jobs (listing) and check_posting, which are named as the sources of the identifier.

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 establishes the workflow context by saying the job_id comes from search_jobs or check_posting, which tells an agent when this tool is the right next step. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g., 'do not use for listings' or 'use check_posting for liveness only'), so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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