get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses conditional behavior ('salary when listed', 'external apply URL if the posting is not Easy Apply') and the read-only nature is evident from 'Fetch'. It does not cover authentication or error/rate-limit behavior, but for a get-by-id call the disclosed conditions are substantive.

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?

Two sentences with the primary purpose and field list front-loaded, followed immediately by the parameter contract. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema available, the description covers accepted input forms and names the returned fields. It omits only explicit prerequisites such as authentication, which would make it fully 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?

The schema provides only a required string, so the description must define the semantics, and it does thoroughly: the job parameter can be a search result's job_id, a LinkedIn jobs URL, or a jobPosting URN. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the action ('Fetch full details') and the resource ('one job posting'), and enumerates the exact fields returned, which clearly separates it from the listing behavior of search_jobs and the saved-job tools.

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 tells the agent where the job identifier comes from ('a job_id from search_jobs, a linkedin.com/jobs/view/... URL, or a jobPosting URN'), establishing when to call it as a follow-up after searching. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops one point short.

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