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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely new context: stale/past listings may be returned, and employer availability should be verified before acting on the result — a real data-quality caveat not captured by any annotation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the caveats. Every clause carries distinct information: contents, staleness risk, and the verification requirement.

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 single-record fetch with no output schema, the description sketches the return payload (job, source listings, country evidence) and warns about stale data. Pagination and error behavior are irrelevant here, leaving only minor gaps in return-shape detail.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the opaque ID and URL-encoding requirement. The phrase 'by ID' confirms usage but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource bundle: canonical job, source listings, and country evidence, keyed by ID. This clearly separates it from search_jobs and get_company_jobs, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implies the tool is for retrieving a known ID rather than discovering jobs, and adds a caution to verify employer availability before recommending a position. It never states when to prefer search_jobs or get_company_jobs over this call, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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