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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned content (dates, 30-day sightings, reposts, plain-language ghost-job flag, description text), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then the payload it returns. Dense but every clause carries information; only minor tightening (e.g. the long colon list) would improve it.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return payload, and annotations handle the safety semantics. What is missing is error/edge behavior (invalid or stale id, sightings window semantics), which would be needed for full completeness.

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 both parameters are self-documented, including the id provenance and the 8000-character trimming of include_description. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 (get full detail for one listing) and pins the key ('by its JobSlop id'), which implicitly distinguishes it from jobslop_find_job_by_url and jobslop_search_jobs that take other keys. It also enumerates what the detail contains, so an agent knows exactly what it is fetching.

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?

Usage is only implied: the id parameter description says the id comes from jobslop_search_jobs or jobslop_find_job_by_url, so the flow is inferable. But the description itself never states when to call this versus those siblings, nor any preconditions or exclusions.

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