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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (a document with title, URL and a plain-text body) and the failure mode (closed/expired ids error and the message names the id). It does not say whether closed listings can ever be retrieved by other means, nor whether the body is truncated, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no boilerplate, and the core operation plus return shape is front-loaded in the first clause. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema to describe the returned document.

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 with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by explaining the returned document and the error case. The one thing an agent still needs is how this differs from get_job.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines the id including its format ("290"). The description adds only the qualifier that the listing must be live — a semantic constraint worth noting, but thin beyond baseline.

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: fetch one live job listing by id, and enumerates what the returned document contains (title, URL, plain-text body covering employer, pay, hours, housing, visas, benefits, dates). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_job, which on its name alone looks like the same operation, so the agent cannot tell the two apart from this text.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search/search_jobs (the discovery path) or get_job. The only conditional given is a failure case — an id that has closed or expired returns an error — which is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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