datasets_jobs_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It explicitly states the return behavior (returns one posting, 404 when absent), which is good. It does not cover authorization, rate limits, or side effects, but for a simple read-only item retrieval, these are less critical. The description is transparent enough for an agent to understand the expected outcomes.

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—three sentences that deliver essential information without any redundant words. Every sentence adds value: the action, the resource, the identifier, and the 404 behavior. There is no fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-item retrieval tool with one parameter, the description covers the core functionality completely. It does not detail the return structure (no output schema exists), but the agent can infer that it returns a job posting object. Some additional context about what fields are included or the dataset schema could improve completeness, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers the sole parameter 'id' with a description 'Dataset posting id'. The tool description adds no further semantics about the parameter (e.g., format, source, or example). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed this baseline. No additional value is provided.

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 action ('Get a single posting'), the resource ('from the jobs dataset'), and the key identifier ('by its dataset posting id'). It explicitly mentions the 404 response when absent, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it behaves. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools.

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 implicitly tells you to use this tool when you have a specific dataset posting ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like datasets_jobs_search or datasets_jobs_nearby. No 'when not to use' guidance or alternative tool names are provided, which is a gap for an agent choosing among many similar item retrieval tools.

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