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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns the public URL of the profile to cite, which is useful output context. It does not elaborate on errors, rate limits, or data freshness, but for a read-only lookup with annotations in place, the additional disclosure is adequate without being rich.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and content list, then covers input format and return value. The bilingual repetition doubles length, but each sentence earns its place by conveying distinct information. It is longer than strictly necessary but remains structured and readable.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: it details what the tool returns, the accepted identifier forms, and the output URL. There are no significant gaps an agent would need to guess before calling it.

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 schema already documents the identifier parameter with examples and guidance. The tool description repeats that slugs or ROME codes are accepted but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 specific verb and resource: it retrieves the full profile of a French job, and enumerates the content areas (duties, skills, alternative names, access conditions, labour-market data, AI exposure). It also clarifies the accepted identifiers (slug or ROME code), distinguishing this from search_jobs and other sibling tools that either search or return related jobs.

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 description states when to use this tool: to get a full job profile by slug or ROME code. It also gives explicit guidance in the parameter description: when unsure about the exact epicene slug, call search_jobs first to obtain it. It does not contrast with get_similar_jobs or get_job_pathways, but the single-profile purpose is clear and the search_jobs routing is a concrete usage hint.

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