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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns the full description, requirements, and ATS handler, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or behavior on an unknown slug.

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 no filler; the required input source and the returned content are packed into one clause without repetition.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, input provenance, and the shape of the content returned, so an agent has what it needs. It omits any mention of failure modes (missing/invalid slug), which keeps it just short of complete.

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 parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's restatement that the slug comes from a search result reinforces the schema but adds no format or validation detail beyond it.

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 ('Read one posting in full') and scopes it precisely via the slug. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling search_jobs, which returns many results, since this tool explicitly reads a single posting.

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 phrase 'by the slug a search result carries' establishes the intended workflow — call search_jobs first, then use this tool on a returned slug — which is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g., 'do not use for listing or filtering'), so it is not a full 5.

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