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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description focuses on what the tool returns. It adds meaningful return-shape details: employer, location, work mode, level, listed pay, posted date, expiration date, skills, description excerpt, RoleWeek URL, and the link to the employer's application page. It does not describe not-found or invalid-slug behavior, leaving a small gap.

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core action and then systematically lists returned fields. Every clause carries information, though the sentence is long and could be easier to scan if broken into usage and return-value parts.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating what the response contains and how the RoleWeek URL relates to the employer's application page. It is nearly complete, with only edge-case behavior such as invalid slugs or missing jobs left unspecified.

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%, so the slug parameter is already well documented as a job slug or roleweek.com/job/<slug>/ URL. The description repeats that the slug comes from search_jobs or the URL, adding only modest contextual value beyond the schema, which fits the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns one RoleWeek role by its slug. It distinguishes this lookup from search_jobs by citing search_jobs and the RoleWeek URL as slug sources, and it enumerates the returned fields.

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?

It clearly implies when to use this tool: after search_jobs, or when holding a RoleWeek job URL, to retrieve full role details. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare against sibling tools such as company_overview or salary_summary, so it falls short of the highest tier.

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