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 is covered; the description adds genuine beyond-schema context: what the returned url represents (the Maison de Talent detail page) and how the application flow works from that page. It stops short of describing not-found/error behavior or pagination, which is why it is not a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are purposeful, but the definition repeats the same content in Korean and English, and the bracketed campaign title adds little for an agent. Appropriately sized overall, yet with avoidable duplication.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and fully covered annotations, the description is complete: it says where the id comes from, what fields are returned, and what the url means. Only error/missing-record behavior is left 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 id parameter is already documented with format and pattern. The description reinforces that the id comes from search_jobs results, which is mildly useful, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 (fetch the details of a single Korean luxury retail sales job posting by id) and enumerates the returned fields (requirements, working conditions, salary, deadline). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_jobs (list) and get_salary_benchmark without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Explicitly ties invocation to a prior search_jobs call ("search_jobs 로 찾은 ... 한 건"), which gives an agent a clear triggering context. It does not spell out exclusions (e.g. what to do when an id is unknown) or contrast against get_salary_benchmark, so it stops short of a 5.

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