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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a requirement (subscription) but doesn't say what happens if the user lacks the subscription (error vs. degraded response) or whether this is a read-only operation that might have rate limits or require additional auth. It also doesn't mention if the link might expire or be session-specific, which could be important for correct invocation.

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 description is short (one sentence) and to the point, which is good. However, the subscription requirement is the only extra context, and it's placed after the main purpose. With only one sentence, it's concise, but it could be restructured to put the requirement front and center for early signaling.

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?

The description is minimal for a simple tool with one well-schemaed parameter. It covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite, but it doesn't mention the return value or how to handle errors, which could leave an agent uncertain about what to expect. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, additional behavioral detail would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% and there's only one parameter, so the schema already fully documents the 'idOrSlug' parameter. The description doesn't add anything beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, so baseline 3 applies. However, because there's only one parameter and it's clearly described in the schema, a score of 4 is justified for minimal added value.

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 ('Get') and a resource ('original application link'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_job or search_jobs—there's no mention of how this link differs from other job data. The purpose is understandable but lacks explicit distinction.

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 introduces a prerequisite (active Hidden Jobs Access subscription), which gives some context on when the tool is usable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_job or search_jobs, nor any conditions for using it over them. The subscription requirement is a useful signal but not enough for clear routing.

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