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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing domain semantics the agent could not otherwise know — that a knockout failure caps scores at 50, that extraWeight yields x4 instead of x2, and that usedForScreening is legacy and ignored. This is substantial value-add beyond 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the action guidance is placed last, where it's easy to find. The middle enumeration of flags is dense and parenthetical-heavy but each clause conveys non-obvious domain meaning, so it earns its space despite the length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values — and it does, enumerating the exposed flag fields and their semantics. For a single-ID read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response correctly.

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 parameter is documented there, so the description is not required to compensate and adds no syntax or format detail about jobDescriptionId. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the full details of a job position') with an explicit scope statement covering evaluation criteria and technical requirements. It is clearly distinguishable from list_jobs (enumeration) and update_job_description (mutation).

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?

States an explicit usage context: 'Use this before editing criteria to inspect their current state,' which effectively pairs it with the update sibling. It gives clear when-to-use guidance but offers no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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