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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming what details are returned, which annotations do not specify. It does not discuss not-found behavior or auth, but this is a simple read with annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, one in Korean and one in English, with no filler. The key source constraint (id from search_jobs) is front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 only one parameter, clear annotations, and a simple read operation, the description is nearly complete. It lists the main returned fields but not the full response shape (no output schema exists), so a small gap remains regarding exact response structure and error cases.

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 schema already states the id is 'search_jobs 결과의 공고 id'. The description repeats the same relationship without adding new format, source, or edge-case guidance, so it earns the baseline score for schema-covered parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('가져옵니다' / 'Get details') and resource ('job posting by id'), and enumerates the detail fields (qualifications, working conditions, salary, deadline). It explicitly ties the id to search_jobs, which distinguishes it from the search sibling without needing to open the 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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool with an id obtained from search_jobs. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_salary_benchmark, but the id-origin constraint makes the intended workflow obvious.

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