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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond 'live' and 'structured record', which hints at freshness and return format but does not disclose pagination, error behavior, or whether the listing may be absent. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key idea of a single live listing. However, it is so terse that it misses useful context, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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 single-record retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'structured record' contains, how to handle a missing ID, or how this differs from search_jobs and fetch. The annotations cover safety, but the description leaves an agent guessing about the return value and selection criteria.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining the 'id' parameter, but it does not mention 'id' at all. The schema itself defines id as an integer with minimum 1, which is self-explanatory for a single-record lookup. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description 'One live listing as a structured record' identifies the resource (a job listing) and the output form (structured record), but it does not use a specific verb like 'get' or 'fetch' and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as fetch or search_jobs. It is clear enough to know it returns a single listing, but vague about what makes it different from other retrieval tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like search_jobs or fetch. The description does not state that it is for retrieving a single listing by ID, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. An agent would have to infer usage from the parameter schema.

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