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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds what the agent would not otherwise know – the returned payload includes client, responsible people, status and custom fields, and the underlying domain scope. It stops short of noting error behavior for missing ids or any auth requirements.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned fields. The trailing 'GET /recruitments/{id}' endpoint restatement is mild filler but cheap and occasionally useful for API-savvy callers.

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 readOnlyHint declared and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece – the shape of the returned job record – plus the scope. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100% for the single job_id parameter and the schema already specifies 'numeric id', so the description's 'by id' adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 one job (recruitment) by id') and enumerates what comes back (client, responsible people, status, custom fields). The 'one job ... by id' phrasing implicitly separates it from traffit_list_jobs, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied only: 'one job by id' suggests the single-record lookup versus the list variants, and 'Scope: recruitment' hints at the domain. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer traffit_list_jobs / traffit_get_candidate_jobs.

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