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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the response includes full fields, original requirement text, and the announcement link, and it implies read-only retrieval. It does not explicitly confirm side-effect-freeness, auth requirements, or not-found behavior, which is a minor gap for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the prerequisite search step is given compactly in the second.

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?

This is low-complexity tool: one parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the return content, the required id, and the prerequisite search_jobs call. It omits error/not-found behavior and the list_deadlines sibling, but those are not essential for this straightforward detail 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?

The schema only provides 'job_id: integer' with no description (0% coverage). The description supplies the missing semantic by explaining that the id identifies a single job and is obtained from search_jobs. It does not name the 'job_id' property explicitly, but the schema already exposes that property name.

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 ('取' / fetch by id), the resource ('单条岗位' / single job), and the scope ('全字段', including original job description/requirements and announcement link). It clearly differentiates from search_jobs by framing this as the id-based detail lookup that follows a search.

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 explicitly instructs '先 search_jobs 拿 id', telling the agent to call search_jobs first and then use the returned id here. It gives clear usage context but does not discuss list_deadlines or negative conditions, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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