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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the ~36-hour re-read/close latency and the three possible return states with a last-confirmed timestamp, which an agent needs to interpret results.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then mechanism, then return values and applicability. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return-value semantics (open/closed/unknown, last confirmed). The only gap is the undocumented job_id parameter, which leaves how to call the tool partially ambiguous given zero required parameters.

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 50% – url is documented but job_id has no description anywhere. The description's mention of 'the employer's careers-site link' loosely mirrors the url param but adds no syntax or format detail, and leaves job_id entirely unexplained despite its presence in the schema.

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 and resource ('checks whether a job posting is still on the employer's own careers site') and explains the mechanism behind the check. An agent can distinguish this freshness check from get_job or search_live_jobs without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear applicability context: 'Works for postings found anywhere, given the employer's careers-site link.' However, it does not name when to prefer this over get_job or search_live_jobs, nor any exclusion conditions, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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