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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing a data limitation: only key data is returned, and the full text must be obtained from the url page. Permissions, rate limits and error behavior are not covered.

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, both load-bearing: the first states what is returned, the second states what is not returned and where to get it. Nothing is wasted and the key limitation is front-loaded.

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, the description need not explain return fields, and it usefully flags the partial-data nature of the response. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is close to complete; only sibling disambiguation 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 description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is documented in the schema as 'id aus search'. The description merely repeats that phrasing without adding format, length or validity constraints, so 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?

The description names a concrete resource (Eckdaten zu einer Stelle) and states the lookup key (id aus search), and it explicitly bounds the scope by saying the full job text is only on the job page (url). An agent can tell this apart from search, though the overlap with the sibling get_job is not addressed.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use it when you already have an id from search and need summary data. It gives no explicit when-not guidance and never mentions the close siblings get_job or search_jobs, so an agent must infer which one to call.

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