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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description only needs to add context beyond safety. It does so by specifying the exact content returned (complete description, requirements, benefits, tech stack, apply contact), which clarifies the tool's scope and output without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently states the action, target, and expected contents, making every word valuable.

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 one parameter, robust annotations, and an output schema present, the description fully covers what is needed to select and invoke the tool. It names the identifier source and details the return contents, leaving no critical ambiguity.

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% with a well-described 'slug' parameter (including how to obtain it). The tool description merely repeats 'by its slug' without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('full detail for a single job') plus the method ('by its slug'). It enumerates the included content (description, requirements, benefits, tech stack, apply contact), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_jobs or get_company.

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 states the tool retrieves details for a single job identified by slug, and explicitly references search_jobs as the source of the slug. This implies the typical workflow (search first, then get detail), though it does not provide explicit exclusions or compare against other sibling tools.

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