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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's '（読み取り専用）' largely restates it. It adds the returned fields, but no auth, rate-limit, or error behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 with the resource and return fields up front and source detail parenthesized. No filler, though the parenthetical is dense.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description lists the return contents and explains the key source, giving the agent enough to call it correctly. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and the schema already states the 4–8 alphanumeric format, so baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining the parameter's provenance (the key from job_search result URLs or the https://aile-ai.jp/jobs/<key> form), which meaningfully aids correct invocation.

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?

Specific verb (返す/returns) plus resource (求人詳細) with an enumerated list of what the detail contains (求人説明・必要資格・選考フロー・勤務地・年収). It ties itself to the job_search sibling as the source of the key, though it does not differentiate itself from salary_market.

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?

Guides the agent on where the required input comes from ('job_search の結果 URL 末尾のキー'), which implies a use-after-search workflow. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. salary_market or any exclusion.

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