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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: posting content is untrusted data (a prompt-injection warning) and the tool's retrieval boundary is limited to public posting/source requirements. Error behavior for an invalid or unknown ID is not covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the untrusted-data caveat and the scope boundary. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers provenance of the input, trust level of the content, and excluded resources. Only edge-case behavior (invalid or stale ID) is left unspecified, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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% for the single canonicalId parameter, so the description must compensate; it does so partially by identifying the ID as a canonical job ID obtained from search_jobs. It adds no format, range, or failure semantics beyond what the integer schema already declares.

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 and resource ('Read the public posting and source requirements') scoped to a 'canonical job ID returned by search_jobs'. This clearly separates it from the sibling search_jobs, which locates jobs rather than returning a single posting's content.

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 prerequisite is explicit: the canonicalId must come from search_jobs. Negative scope is also stated ('Cannot retrieve account records, applications, resumes or paid Fit results'), telling the agent when this is the wrong call. Alternatives for those excluded needs are not named, only excluded.

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