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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The only added signal is 'full description' (an output-shape remark), and there is no disclosure of the auth requirement implied by the 'token' parameter, rate limits, or behavior on an unknown id.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a tool that requires a credential and an id.

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, but for a two-parameter detail tool with 0% schema coverage the definition leaves the credential/id contract and its relationship to the board sibling unexplained. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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% and the description explains neither parameter. The distinction between 'token' (evidently an API/board credential) and 'id' (the job identifier) is left entirely to the agent to guess, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource ('Greenhouse job') and narrows scope to a single record with its full description, but it supplies no verb and does not differentiate itself from the many sibling job tools (e.g., jobs_greenhouse_board, jobs_lever_posting). It largely restates the tool name with a small output qualifier.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus jobs_greenhouse_board or the other board/posting siblings, and no mention of required inputs or preconditions. An agent must infer that this is the detail-lookup counterpart to a board listing.

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