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

Annotations already declare readOnly/no-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: contact data is stripped, and an empty list is returned when the posting is no longer visible — a non-obvious outcome for what reads like a single-item fetch.

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 clauses, both load-bearing: what is returned and the edge-case return value. Nothing redundant and the key fact is front-loaded.

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 and no annotations covering return shape, the description does the necessary work by describing the payload (no contact data) and the empty-list edge case. Only the job_id semantics remain thinly covered.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for job_id. The link example '…/#gesuch=12' weakly implies the id format, but it never explicitly maps job_id to that fragment value or states its type, leaving the sole parameter only partially explained.

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 (retrieve) and resource (a single visible job posting), and the scope marker 'einzelnes' implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_jobs. The parenthetical clarifies what is excluded (contact data), but it never names the sibling it differs from.

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?

It gives a concrete triggering context (a shared link like …/#gesuch=12), which is useful implied guidance, but there is no explicit when-not or pointer to search_jobs for the more general lookup case.

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