Get a job listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'Returns the complete description, salary, skills, and apply link,' which gives some insight into the response content. However, it does not mention any potential side effects (though this is a read operation, it's not explicitly stated), authentication requirements, or rate limits. It adds value by detailing the return fields but is minimal on other behavioral aspects, so a 3 is fair.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the purpose and the input source; the second sentence lists the return fields. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool. No filler or irrelevant details, earning a top score.

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 tool with one required parameter that is fully described in the schema, and with siblings like search_jobs that provide the id, the description is complete for an agent to call it correctly. The return fields are described, and the input source is clear. No output schema exists but the description covers the key return elements. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage (the parameter 'id' is described as 'The job id/slug returned by search_jobs'). The description reiterates this by saying 'from search_jobs,' adding no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not clarify the format of the id (e.g., string length, URL encoding) or provide examples sums. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds negligible extra value, so 3 is justified.

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 purpose: 'Fetch the full detail of one Kansas City developer job by its id.' It identifies the specific resource (a job listing) and the action (fetch full detail), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_jobs by noting the id comes from search_jobs. This is specific and unambiguous, earning a top score.

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 when to use this tool: after search_jobs has returned a job id/slug, as it says 'from search_jobs.' It also names the source of the id, which is the primary context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., if you need multiple jobs, use search_jobs instead). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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