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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the returned fields and handling the edge case that a closed job reports itself as closed. It stops short of noting auth requirements or error behavior for an invalid id.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by return contents, edge case and next step. Only mild redundancy with the schema on the id format; nothing is padded.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, the returned fields and the closed-job edge case. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly; only failure modes for a malformed id are unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter already documents the ten-character format and the keywordise.com/jobs derivation. The description restates the same format and link form rather than adding new syntax or validation detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (read a public job) plus the exact identifier form it consumes, so the agent can distinguish it from the many other job-related siblings. It also names the follow-up tool, apply_to_public_job, anchoring the tool in a workflow.

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 trigger is explicit and concrete: use when the person gives a ten-character Keywordise job id or a keywordise.com/jobs link, with a worked example. It routes forward to apply_to_public_job, but never says when NOT to use it (e.g. versus get_live_job or get_job_posting for non-public jobs).

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