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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists returned fields (description, salary, PCN, closing date, apply link), implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only status, error handling, or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

The description is one sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Full detail for one listing') and immediately provides the mechanism (by slug or URL) plus key return fields. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter get operation, the description is fairly complete: it lists the return contents and input format. It lacks error-handling notes but compensates for the absent output schema by enumerating fields. Siblings are clear enough to disambiguate.

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?

The schema already fully describes the 'slug' parameter, including the option for a full URL. The description repeats the same information and adds no new semantic detail, so per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Full detail for one listing by slug or alaskajobs.org URL', using a specific verb (get) and resource (job listing). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_jobs (search) and get_employer (employer-specific), so purpose is unambiguous.

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 use when you have a specific job slug or URL and need full details. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions like 'use search_jobs to discover listings'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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