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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the employer-written duties and requirements, application instructions, and company details. The conditional 'when we hold one' correctly signals that the address may be absent. It does not contradict the read-only annotation and provides meaningful detail beyond the structured metadata.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned content. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, where the input comes from, and the conditional nature of the address. An agent has enough information to select and call it correctly.

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%, and the schema already describes the slug as 'Job slug from list_jobs'. The description repeats this provenance but adds no new semantic detail about the slug's format or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('get'), resource ('full advert for a single vacancy'), and source ('slug from list_jobs'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_jobs (which lists vacancies) and from get_employer (which would focus on the company alone). The content scope is explicit: duties, requirements, how to apply, company and address.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to obtain the slug from list_jobs, which establishes the expected workflow and usage context. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives like get_employer, but the purpose statement is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate choice. The main gap is the absence of explicit exclusion criteria.

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