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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the ad text is shortened and stripped of contact details, and the call errors when the job is no longer active. Only minor gaps remain (rate limits, caching/freshness).

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?

One front-loaded sentence: the action and subject come first, followed by a compact parenthetical list of returned fields and the error condition. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return structure, the description only needs to frame scope, id provenance, and failure mode — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 parameter is already documented in the schema with its URL format. The description only restates that the id comes from search_jobs, which the schema effectively conveys, so this is baseline-level added value for a fully-documented parameter.

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 (Get) and resource (details for one active job on Kollegia) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also names the sibling search_jobs as the source of the id, cleanly separating this lookup tool from the search tool.

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 description implies the correct workflow by tying the id to search_jobs ("from search_jobs") and warns that an inactive job yields an error, which tells the agent when this call will fail. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it versus siblings like employer_jobs or salary_for_occupation, but the context is clear.

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