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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's main added value is disclosing the returned payload fields. That is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, though it says nothing about missing/expired jobs or how 'similar jobs' are populated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and then the payload contents; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract by naming the fields returned. It is close to complete, though it omits error behavior for unknown ids.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that 'id' is a job id from search_jobs results. The description's 'from search_jobs' merely echoes the schema, adding no format or validation detail. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('full details for one job') and enumerates the returned payload (description, requirements, pay, apply link, similar jobs). It also anchors the tool against its sibling by naming search_jobs as the source of the job id.

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?

'from search_jobs' communicates the prerequisite workflow — get an id from search_jobs, then call this for the detail view — which effectively distinguishes it from the sibling. No explicit when-not guidance or mention of the other siblings, but the context is clear.

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