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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the shape of the response (full text, locations, pay range, Levels.fyi estimated comp with matchesThisPosting flag, applyUrl) — important since no output schema exists. It does not address failure modes for invalid or expired jobIds, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the field enumeration earns its space because there is no output schema to convey the return shape. The closing 'REQUIRED arguments' sentence is mildly redundant with the schema's required array, a small amount of waste in an otherwise tight description.

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 correctly compensates by listing returned fields, including the non-obvious USD currency and the matchesThisPosting marker semantics. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only error/expiry behavior is unaddressed.

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 single parameter's schema description ('A jobId from search-jobs') already carries the meaning. The description's 'REQUIRED arguments: jobId' largely restates the schema's required list rather than adding syntax, format, or provenance detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 one job posting by its jobId') and explicitly anchors it to the search-jobs sibling, so an agent can tell it apart from search-jobs without opening a schema. It goes further by enumerating the payload the tool returns, making the scope of the operation unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by its jobId from search-jobs' plus 'REQUIRED arguments: jobId' makes the intended workflow clear: search first, then fetch by id. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., what to do if the posting has expired or the id is stale), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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