apple_jobs_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries some burden. It discloses that the data is 'Parsed from jobs.apple.com's server-rendered job detail page' and shows example ID formats, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens for invalid IDs.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, follows with concrete examples, and ends with the source. Every sentence contributes value.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, identifies how to obtain the ID, and notes the data source. It could be more complete by describing the returned posting structure or failure behavior, but the tool is simple enough that these gaps are minor.

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?

Even though the schema covers the 'id' parameter 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining that the ID comes from search results, and gives two distinct example formats (requisition ID vs. evergreen/PIPE ID). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal 'Apple job id'.

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 it 'Returns one Apple Careers posting by its job id', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from search tools by specifying it returns a single posting, and the sibling apple_jobs_search exists for discovering IDs.

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 tells the agent to use the 'id' field 'returned by search', giving concrete examples of valid IDs. It clearly implies the correct workflow (search first, then fetch detail), though it does not explicitly name the sibling search tool or state when not to use it.

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