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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: error behavior for non-live ids, exclusion of expired and withdrawn postings, free access, and an explicit licensing/attribution obligation pointing at structuredContent.attribution. That is exactly the kind of operational and legal context annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and record scope before the payload detail. The provenance-field enumeration is long but each item is genuinely informative; a small amount of tightening is possible but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the key payload fields (dataOrigin, salaryOrigin, firstSeenAt, lastVerifiedAt, updatedAt) plus error and licensing behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 single parameter is fully documented there, including the 'job_<slug>' format and bare-slug acceptance. The description adds only "by id" and does not repeat or enrich the format rules, 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 and resource ("Fetch ONE nomado24 job posting by id") and explicitly scopes to a single record, which cleanly separates it from the sibling search_jobs list operation. The payload contents are enumerated, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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?

Clear usage context: it takes an id and returns an error result for ids that are not live postings, with expired and withdrawn postings explicitly not served. It never names search_jobs as the way to obtain an id in the description itself, but the single-record framing plus the schema's "Job id as returned by search_jobs" makes the routing unambiguous.

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