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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing that the returned description is only an excerpt and that the listing URL holds the complete text, which affects how an agent should use the result.

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 tightly packed sentence front-loads the core action, then adds return contents and the full-text pointer with no wasted words. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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 with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the source, the required input provenance, the returned fields, and the truncation caveat. An agent can invoke it correctly without further context.

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% with a single well-documented 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's "by the id returned from search" merely restates the schema's "Listing id from search" and adds no new format or constraint detail.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (retrieve one job listing) plus concrete return contents (location, salary, apply link, description excerpt) and names the id's origin. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_job, which an agent would have to disambiguate on its own.

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?

"by the id returned from search" states the precondition and points to the correct upstream tool, which is clear usage context. It stops short of saying when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like get_job or search_jobs.

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