get_gcjobs_job

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

With no annotations, the description has to do the work alone, and it discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'Who can apply' is surfaced first, postings past their closing date are flagged because the board still serves 2001-era listings as though live, and about a third of postings return an outbound URL instead of a record. That is the kind of context needed to interpret a result correctly. It stops short of covering failure modes (invalid ID) or any rate-limit/auth expectations.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose before the value-add details about eligibility, stale listings, and off-site hosting. The parenthetical about 2001-era postings is slightly colorful but still carries information about stale data, so nothing is wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden, and it does describe the notable parts of the response: the eligibility line reported first plus the outbound-URL fallback. It is not an exhaustive field list, but it covers what an agent needs to decide whether this tool answers its question.

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 schema already documents job_id as a numeric poster ID from the URL with a concrete example, so the description adds essentially nothing beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description only restates the key format.

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: full detail for a single GC Jobs posting, keyed by the numeric poster ID from its URL. That is clearly distinct from the sibling list tools (search_gcjobs) and from job-detail tools for other boards (get_linkedin_job, get_indeed_job, get_gojobs_job) without needing to open 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?

The usage is implied rather than stated: 'by the numeric poster ID in its URL' signals this is the detail lookup that follows a search, and the mention of postings hosted off-site hints at when the result will not contain a full record. But it never explicitly names search_gcjobs as the way to obtain an ID, nor states any when-not condition.

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