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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: null fields mean the advert left the fact unstated, and a closed/expired id returns an error naming that id. That error contract is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and identifier, then the return contents and the failure case. The field enumeration is long but each item is informative; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the returned fields and null semantics, plus the error case for stale ids. Only the interplay with search/search_jobs (how an id is obtained) is left unstated.

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% and the id parameter is already documented with an example ('such as 290'), so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces 'numeric id' and adds the live-listing constraint, adding little beyond the schema.

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 ('Get one live LucyESL job listing by its numeric id as a structured record') and the cardinality ('one') implicitly separates it from the plural search/search_jobs siblings. An agent can tell immediately this is a single-record lookup, not a query.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its numeric id' signals it is a follow-up call after obtaining an id, but no sibling is named and no when-not-to-use is given (e.g. 'use search_jobs when you don't have an id'). This is minimum-viable routing guidance.

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