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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description still adds meaningful behavior: the prompt-injection warning to treat employer text as data, the fact that removed or moderated postings aren't served, a per-call cost, and the description_truncated indicator. These go well beyond what annotations and schema convey.

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?

The content is dense but front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and the long first sentence earns most of its length by enumerating distinct record components. The prompt-injection and cost notes are placed after the core definition. Slightly verbose in listing every return component when an output schema already exists.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, yet the description still covers identification methods, default vs html format, truncation behavior, cost, and unsupported (removed/moderated) postings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents id, url, max_chars and description_format thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance value by telling the agent that the id comes from search_jobs and that url can be an alion.io/job link, its slug, or the original posting url, which helps selection beyond the field descriptions.

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+resource (get one job posting) and enumerates exactly what the full record contains, explicitly framing it as 'everything search_jobs returns plus' the description, tech list, requirements, benefits, lifecycle journal and trust flags. This distinguishes it from search_jobs without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Routes the agent clearly: identify the posting by Alion id (noting it comes from search_jobs) or by url, and it names search_jobs as the origin of the id, implying this is the detail-fetch counterpart. It also states that removed/moderated postings are not served and that each call costs 1 unit, but offers no explicit 'when not to use this' beyond the implicit list-vs-detail split.

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