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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered without prose. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, that the returned record is the full normalized form (as opposed to a list summary), but says nothing about lookup failure behavior. That is an acceptable but modest addition over the annotations.

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; the identity format is stated up front and the one extra clause about the full normalized record earns its place by describing output scope.

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, return-value detail need not be explained, and the single fully documented parameter plus rich annotations mean the agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the missing when-to-use guidance keeps this from being complete.

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%, so the id parameter, its source:nativeId format and its provenance from list_gigs are all already documented in the schema. The description only restates the same format string, adding no new syntax or constraint, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb ("Fetch") and resource ("a single gig") plus the identity format, and the word "single" implicitly contrasts with the list_gigs sibling. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating what makes this retrieval different from find_jobs, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer it should call this when it already holds a Jobbi id rather than a query. There is no statement of when to prefer find_jobs or list_gigs, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are given.

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