get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and enumerates the returned fields (name, status, departments, offices, hiring team, custom fields). However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., job not found) or any authorization requirements, leaving some transparency gap.

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 compact: one purpose sentence, one return-fields sentence, and a structured enumeration of alternative tools. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler, and key information is front-loaded.

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 get-by-ID tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, expected return content, and alternatives. The presence of an output schema obviates the need to describe return types in detail, and nothing essential is missing for the tool's complexity.

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 a terse description 'Greenhouse job ID' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by instructing 'Use list_jobs to find the job_id by name first,' which tells the agent how to source a valid parameter value beyond what the schema offers. This elevates the score to 4.

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 tool's function: 'Get full details for a job by ID' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting the public listing (list_job_posts_for_job) and pipeline stages (list_job_stages_for_job) as separate concerns, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use list_jobs to find the job_id by name first' and names specific alternatives for other related tasks. It tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus siblings, satisfying the dimension fully.

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