jobs_icims_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is 'credential-free' and returns 'full HTML/text description, department, and benefits'. However, it omits error behavior, rate limits, or response validation details.

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?

Three short, focused sentences with no redundancy or fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return types, parameter hints, and access method.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (description, department, benefits) and notes credential-free access. It covers the main use cases for a simple single-job retrieval, but could mention response format details.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'id is the req_id/slug from a board listing' and 'lang defaults to en-us') but largely repeats what the schema already describes, providing no substantial new meaning.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a single iCIMS job' and lists returned fields (description, department, benefits), plus notes it's credential-free and public ATS JSON. This differentiates from sibling tools like jobs_icims_board (which likely lists jobs) and other ATS-specific 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?

Description advises that 'id is the req_id/slug from a board listing' and mentions language default, giving implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among the many job siblings, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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