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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the domain ('url on kollegia.no') and names the returned fields, but since an output schema exists this return-value detail is largely redundant; no pagination, auth or error behavior is disclosed.

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: verb, resource, id source, and return payload in order of importance. Every clause earns its place.

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 full annotations and an output schema, the definition is nearly complete and the agent has everything needed to invoke it. The one real gap is the unresolved overlap with the get_job sibling, which the description never addresses.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description goes one step further by telling the agent where the single 'id' value originates (from search or search_jobs), which reduces malformed calls. It does not add format details beyond the schema's 'Job id.'

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 ('Fetch the full ad for one job by id') plus the payload (title, text, url, key facts as metadata), which is far more than the bare name 'fetch'. However, it never differentiates itself from the near-synonymous sibling get_job, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 parenthetical '(from search or search_jobs)' implies the intended search-then-fetch pipeline, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and it does not resolve which of fetch vs. get_job an agent should pick given a job id.

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