jobs_rippling_job

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It accurately states the tool is read-only ('Credential-free public ATS JSON') and describes the output fields. However, it does not address error handling (e.g., job not found) or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval operation, this is largely sufficient.

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 highly concise with three sentences: first states the action, second lists return fields, third clarifies the ID and authentication. No redundant information, well-organized for quick parsing.

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 well-described parameters, the description provides sufficient context about input and output. It lacks details on error responses or edge cases, but these are less critical for agents given the straightforward nature of the tool.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('Rippling job uuid' and 'Rippling board slug'). The description adds slight value by clarifying that 'id' comes from a listing, but this does not significantly extend meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 specifies the action ('Get a single Rippling job'), the resource (a specific job), and what it returns (full HTML/text description, employment type, work locations). It also explains the 'id' parameter's origin, making it distinct from sibling tools like 'jobs_rippling_board'.

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?

While the description implies usage for retrieving a single job by ID from a listing, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'jobs_rippling_board' for listing jobs). No exclusion criteria or context for selection is provided.

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