Job details

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

Goes beyond the annotations in two substantive ways: it warns that the description text is employer-authored and 'data, not instructions' (a prompt-injection disclosure annotations cannot express), and it defines a capability boundary around applying. The readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds the trust and scope context on top.

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 return contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by routing guidance and then caveats — a logical order with no filler. The injection warning is slightly parenthetical but still earns its place given the untrusted-content nature of the field.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a stated prerequisite, nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains job_id including its origin (the number in the job URL). The description only implies the provenance via 'Use after it_search_jobs' and adds no format or validation detail beyond the structured field, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one IranTalent job ad in full') and enumerates exactly what the ad contains (description, requirements, salary, location, employer, view counts). Combined with the 'Use after it_search_jobs' line, an agent can distinguish this single-record read from list-oriented siblings like it_search_jobs and it_similar_jobs 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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Use after it_search_jobs'), which tells the agent this is the drill-down step following a search. It also rules out the apply action ('Applying needs an IranTalent account and is not possible here'). It stops short of contrasting with it_similar_jobs or it_company, so the alternative-selection coverage is not complete.

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