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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the field set returned and the privacy constraint that recruiter contact details are withheld, plus the qualifier that only 'live' jobs are 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the return payload, then a short caveat. The field enumeration is a touch listy but each item earns its place by previewing the response.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it flags the recruiter-contact exclusion. It omits error/failure behavior for non-live or missing job ids, which would be the only remaining gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Job id' by naming search_jobs as the source of valid ids. That provenance is genuinely useful for constructing a correct call.

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 ('Full details of one live job by id') and scopes it to a single live job, which cleanly separates it from the sibling search_jobs. An agent can tell immediately this is the detail-fetch counterpart to search.

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 parenthetical '(from search_jobs)' tells the agent where the id comes from, implying this is the follow-up call after a search. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., what happens with expired/non-live job ids), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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