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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered without the text. The description adds the scope of the returned detail fields, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior when an id does not exist.

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 short sentences with the action and the source of the id front-loaded, and the Korean/English pair is compact. The bracketed promotional prefix is extraneous content that does not earn its place.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the return contents and the id source. Missing only failure-mode behavior (invalid or expired posting id) to be fully complete.

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 is documented in the schema as 'search_jobs 결과의 공고 id', including a UUID format and pattern. The description only restates that same provenance, so it adds no format, constraint, or edge-case meaning 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 ('공고 id 의 상세를 가져옵니다' / 'Get details of a job posting by id') and enumerates what the detail contains (자격요건·근무조건·급여·마감일). It partially separates itself from the sibling search_jobs by framing itself as the detail lookup for ids found there, though the leading bracketed campaign tag '[메종 드 탤런트 명품 매장 채용]' is noise that muddies the statement.

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?

Clearly establishes the prerequisite that the id comes from a search_jobs result, which tells an agent the correct call order. It offers no explicit exclusions or comparison against get_salary_benchmark, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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