tes_job_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is normalized, enumerates the returned fields, and importantly warns that only "a short excerpt" of the listing description is returned rather than the full HTML copy. This manages expectations beyond what the schema reveals. It doesn't cover error behavior, but that's a minor gap for a read tool.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the action, then enumerates outputs and the key limitation without fluff. Every clause earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a thorough job of listing the return contents (employer, location, salary, contract terms/types, dates, application contact/URL, excerpt). It also names the source of the required id, so an agent can correctly chain this tool with tes-job-search. No critical information for a simple single-object fetch is missing.

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 meaningful extra semantics: the id is numeric and specifically the id field returned by tes-job-search. This clarifies the parameter's provenance and format better than the schema's bare "Tes 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get a Tes teaching job") and immediately clarifies scope: one job posting by numeric id. It explicitly names the source of that id (tes-job-search) and distinguishes this from the sibling search tool. The mention of "normalized detail" further marks it as a detail/retrieve endpoint.

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 contextual guidance: the agent must first obtain an id from tes-job-search, then call this tool for details. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name matching alternatives, but the use case is unambiguous given the wording and sibling context.

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