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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), it discloses a token cost (~1100 per posting), warns that descriptionText is untrusted third-party text rather than instructions, and defines what a not-found result means (stale posting). Those are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three labeled lines — Purpose / When / Cost — with the most decision-relevant fact first and no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary; the description supplies the remaining decision inputs (cost budget, untrusted-content handling, staleness semantics) for a 1-param read tool. Nothing material is missing.

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 single param is fully documented, so the 3 baseline is already met; the description adds provenance ('from a search or a monitor') telling the agent where valid ids come from. The 'up to 10 at once' restates maxItems, hence not a 5.

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 ('Read') and resource ('chosen job postings in full') with a scope boundary ('up to 10 at once'), which cleanly separates it from job_postings_search: that tool finds postings, this one expands already-chosen ids.

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?

The 'When:' line gives two concrete triggers — the user picks postings from a search or monitor, or asks for judging/tailoring. That effectively implies 'do not use for discovery', but no sibling is named by name and no explicit when-not is stated, so it falls 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.