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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the result is the 'full details' of a single posting; it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id or result shape. With annotations carrying the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that identifies the operation first, then the key, then the source of the key. No filler, nothing to trim.

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. The description supplies the missing piece (where the id comes from), leaving only minor gaps such as behavior on a missing/invalid id.

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 documents the single `id` parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'numeric' hint and the provenance of the id, which marginally enriches but does not go beyond the schema in a meaningful way.

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 (Fetch), resource (one Meta Careers posting's full details), and the exact key (numeric job `id`). It also names the two sibling tools that produce the id, so an agent can tell it apart from meta_jobs_list and meta_jobs_search without opening any 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 the agent: the id must come from meta_jobs_search or meta_jobs_list, which is clear when-to-use context. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. use the list/search tool instead if you don't yet have an id), so it is one notch below fully specified.

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