hires_get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that `include` can embed workflow, hiring team, or pipeline stages, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention what happens for invalid IDs, the exact return shape, or any authentication/permission requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and a secondary hint about `include`. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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 get tool with two parameters, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It mentions the `include` feature, but without an output schema, it does not clarify what 'full details' includes or what the response structure looks like. It also does not differentiate from the career job endpoint, which could matter in context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it rephrases the `include` parameter and says 'by ID or alias,' which the schema already documents. No new semantic details are provided.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get full details of a job by ID or alias.' This is a specific verb+resource action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_list_jobs (which lists jobs) and hires_get_career_job (which targets public career jobs). The mention of loading related data via `include` further clarifies its scope.

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 usage when you have a job ID or alias and need full details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like hires_list_jobs or hires_get_career_job. There are no stated exclusions or direct comparisons, so guidance is clear but not explicit.

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