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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing the key negative behavior: the Stellentext (tasks, requirements) is deliberately NOT returned and must be obtained from the linked page, which prevents a wrong assumption about coverage.

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 sentences, no waste: the first front-loads the returned fields, the second immediately flags the exclusion. Each sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes them helpfully. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, the only remaining gap is the absence of explicit guidance on sourcing the id or on when to fall back to fetch/search_jobs.

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 there is a single required id parameter already documented in the schema as 'field id aus search_jobs oder die URL der Stellenseite'. The description adds no additional meaning about the accepted id formats or URL handling, so the 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-resource pair (retrieve job key data) and enumerates exactly which fields come back: employer, location, grading, salary range, career track, deadline, link. It is clearly the detail-lookup counterpart to search_jobs, though it does not name any sibling explicitly in the description itself.

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 only implied: the closing sentence tells you the job text lives on the job page, which hints that this tool is a metadata shortcut rather than a full-text fetch. There is no explicit 'call search_jobs first to get the id' or 'use fetch instead if you need the full posting' routing guidance inside the description; that hint exists only in the schema's id field.

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