job_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, response format, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 with no wasted words, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It under-specifies the tool's purpose and lacks any structural cues (e.g., paragraph breaks, extra context), making it minimal rather than appropriately sized.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter get-by-id tool with a complete schema description. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what job details are returned, potential error conditions, or any edge cases. For a low-complexity tool, the description is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the param description for jobId provides valuable context ('Get this value from "rest_id" returned from GET /jobs-search Endpoint'). The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get Job Details' clearly specifies a verb (Get) and a resource (Job Details), distinguishing it from sibling tools for tweets, users, communities, and lists. However, it restates the tool name almost exactly and provides no additional specifics about what details are included.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like search_jobs or get_tweet_details. The only contextual hint (how to obtain jobId from the /jobs-search endpoint) appears in the schema parameter description, not in the tool description itself.

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