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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by enumerating what the 'complete record' contains, such as requirements, salary breakdown, employer, contract type, and application URL. This informs the agent what information it can expect to retrieve without contradicting any annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently lists the important result fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, this description is complete. It tells the agent when to use it, how to identify the job, and what the result contains. No critical guidance is missing.

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?

The single parameter 'slug' is fully documented in the input schema, including the fact that it comes from search_jobs. The description repeats this relationship but does not add meaningful new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the complete record of one job listing in Portugal by its slug.' The scope is clear and it is easily distinguished from siblings like search_jobs (list-level search) and find_similar_jobs (recommendations).

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 explicitly says to use this 'after search_jobs when the user asks about a specific role,' which gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or compare it to other siblings, but the intended workflow is obvious.

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