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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the quota cost ('counts as one job toward the monthly allowance') and that the full description is returned, which an agent should factor into call budgeting.

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 tight sentence front-loads the resource and scope, then appends the endpoint and the quota caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully covers parameters. The description covers identity, scope, endpoint and cost, leaving only minor gaps such as error behavior for an unknown id.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (id and descriptionFormat) documented in the schema itself, including the uuid format and the plain/markdown enum. The description adds only 'by id', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Jobven job posting by id, with the full description'), which is clearly distinct from the search_jobs sibling since it retrieves a single posting by identifier. It stops short of explicitly naming search_jobs as the differentiator, but the id-based scope makes the distinction inferable.

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 implies the tool is used to fetch a single job once an id is known, and adds a meaningful operational note that each call consumes one job from the monthly allowance. It does not state when to prefer this over search_jobs or what to do if the id is unknown, so usage is only implied.

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