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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the tool's safe read nature is known. The description adds the specific content of the returned details (skills, benefits, etc.), which is useful but not deep behavioral context. No mention of errors, auth, or other nuances, but the annotation reduces the burden.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and content, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place; it is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with a read-only annotation and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what fields are returned, and when to use it. No additional context is needed.

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 already covers the only parameter 'id' with a description ('The job ID'), yielding 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond repeating 'by its ID' and doesn't clarify the ID's origin or format, so it stays at the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('builder job'), and scope ('by its ID'). It also enumerates the details returned (description, skills, experience requirements, benefits, company info), and the phrase 'Use this after search_jobs' distinguishes it from the search sibling.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use this after search_jobs to retrieve the complete listing'), providing clear context relative to one sibling. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it or compare to list_filters), so it falls short of a full 5.

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