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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the job fields returned and noting that employer application facts are included when known. It does not describe not-found or invalid-id behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states what the tool returns. The field list is dense but purposeful, though it is long and could be slightly easier to scan if split or bulleted.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description does enough by enumerating the returned content and noting conditional employer facts. It leaves minor gaps around error or empty-result behavior, preventing a full 5.

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 100%, and the single parameter is already documented as the job id from search_jobs. The description reinforces that the id is a Haystack id but adds no syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear retrieval action and resource: one job's details by its Haystack id. It enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as employer_facts, especially since it also mentions employer reply-rate facts, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage by requiring a Haystack id, and the schema notes that the id comes from search_jobs. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of search_jobs or employer_facts, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond the id requirement.

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