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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature and external data source are covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that profile, but it is not misleading. With the safety bar carried by annotations, this is a bare-minimum 3.

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 resource and its key are stated immediately. It is appropriately terse, though the terse phrasing is part of why other dimensions lack detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with 0% schema coverage on the id parameter and no pointer to how ids are obtained (from amazon_jobs_search), the definition is only minimally complete for an agent that must call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden; it only adds 'numeric job id' to explain the single required parameter. It does not say where to obtain the id, and 'numeric' is slightly at odds with the schema's declared type of string, which could confuse an agent about formatting.

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 resource (a single Amazon.jobs posting) and the retrieval key (numeric job id), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like amazon_jobs_search and amazon_jobs_categories. The verb is only implied ('Single ... posting' rather than 'retrieve'), but an agent can tell it apart from the list/search siblings without opening the schema.

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: this is the detail lookup used once you already have an id, whereas amazon_jobs_search finds postings and amazon_jobs_categories browses categories. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and it never says the id must come from a prior search, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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