meta_jobs_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the parsing source (server-rendered job detail page) which adds useful context, but does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or what fields are returned. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value—scope, id source, and parsing origin—with no redundant or filler content.

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 detail lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential inputs (id provenance), purpose, and data source. It does not explain return values, but for such a simple tool the description is sufficiently complete.

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% with a minimal description 'Meta job id'. The tool description adds that it is a numeric id that comes from search or list, providing provenance beyond the schema. This is a modest addition, so a 3 (baseline for high schema coverage) is appropriate.

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 a single Meta Careers posting by numeric job id, using the verb 'Returns' with a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like meta_jobs_search and meta_jobs_list by explicitly saying 'single posting' and referencing the id from search or list.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: after obtaining an id from search or list. It implicitly points to sibling tools for finding ids, but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative scenarios, so it falls short of a full 5.

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