hires_get_career_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the 404 behavior for non-public jobs and lists the extended fields returned, providing meaningful behavioral context for a read-only tool. It doesn't cover auth or response shape, but the key edge case is addressed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and a key error condition.

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 get-by-ID tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and error behavior. It's nearly complete but doesn't specify exact response structure or authentication requirements, which are likely public and self-explanatory.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for id and company_slug. The description adds no new semantic information beyond reinforcing that the job is fetched by ID and the career site is identified by company_slug, so baseline 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?

Description begins with 'Get full details of a single public job by ID', clearly stating the verb (Get), resource (public job), and identification method (by ID). It also lists extended fields and 404 condition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hires_get_job, which likely targets internal jobs.

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?

Description implies usage for public job details and explicitly states it returns 404 for draft, archived, or internal jobs, providing clear when-not context. However, it does not name an alternative tool (e.g., hires_get_job) for internal jobs, so it falls short of a 5.

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