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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description's fetch semantics ('Full details of one...') fully align — no contradiction. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the returned content fields, giving the agent a concrete picture of what a successful call yields.

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 front-loaded sentence establishes the purpose ('Full details of one ENTRA job by id') and a colon-delimited field list packs the output expectations into compact form. Zero filler words; every element 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 single-parameter read tool, the definition is complete: the schema fully documents job_id, annotations cover safety/idempotency, and the description's field list effectively substitutes for an output schema by telling the agent what to expect. No critical invocation detail 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 description coverage is 100% — job_id is already documented as 'Job id from search_jobs / match_jobs', so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only marginal context ('ENTRA' qualifier and 'by id'), which confirms the parameter's role without adding format or constraint details.

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+resource scope — 'Full details of one ENTRA job by id' — and enumerates the exact fields returned (description, requirements, skills, salary band, company, apply link). The 'one...by id' phrasing clearly separates it from list/search siblings like search_jobs, match_jobs, and salary_stats.

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?

Usage is implied: the description signals this tool is for retrieving a single job's full details once an id is known. However, it never explicitly states when to use it versus siblings, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. The schema's parameter hint ('Job id from search_jobs / match_jobs') supplies the provenance, but the description itself offers no routing guidance.

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