freelance_get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the READ_DIRECTORY requirement, server-side re-authorization, per-org visibility rules, and explains that an empty result for an inaccessible ORG posting is expected behavior rather than an error.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by explaining authorization and failure semantics; it could be tightened slightly but contains no 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers id usage, permission requirements, visibility filtering, and empty-result meaning. An agent has enough information to select and call it correctly and to interpret unusual results.

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 only parameter 'id' is already fully described in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds general context but no new syntax, format, or value semantics for the id beyond confirming it selects one posting.

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 begins with a specific action and resource: 'One job posting in full by id.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools and tells an agent exactly what resource it targets.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'by id' – an agent can infer to use this when it already holds a posting id rather than when searching/filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though it does give a prerequisite: READ_DIRECTORY.

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