Job ad details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by enumerating what is returned (skills, software, conditions, benefits, pay, location, dates, employer summary) and flagging that pay is in million Toman per month and "often hidden" — a real caveat an agent should expect. It stops short of noting auth or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then a follow-up routing hint. No filler, no restatement of the title, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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, so the description must describe returns — and it does so in detail, including units and the hidden-pay caveat. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single job_id param is already documented with an example value in the schema. The description only reinforces provenance ("Use after jv_search or jv_similar_jobs"), which is marginally additive. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Get the full text and requirements of one Jobvision job ad" names a specific verb (get), a specific resource (one job ad), and its scope (single ad, full detail). This clearly separates it from list-style siblings like jv_search and jv_similar_jobs without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

"Use after jv_search or jv_similar_jobs" explicitly states the upstream tools that produce the job_id, and "Call jv_company with company.id" routes the agent onward for a related need. Alternatives and sequencing are stated rather than inferred, which is the top bar for this dimension.

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