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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: a 404 response when the posting is absent. It omits any auth or rate-limit context, but for a simple read that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then error behavior, then the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only/open-world profile, the description need not explain return values. Purpose, absent-result behavior, and the sibling routing together cover everything an agent needs to call this 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 100% and the single 'id' param is already documented as 'The dataset posting id'. The description's phrasing mirrors that exactly, adding no format, source, or example beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns one crawled job posting') plus the exact key it takes ('by its dataset posting id'). It also names the sibling it is not (datasets_jobs_search), so an agent can distinguish lookup-by-id from search without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes to datasets_jobs_search for searching, implicitly leaving this tool for when a posting id is already known. It gives the alternative and a hint at the condition, but never states the 'when you already have an id' precondition outright, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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