Get job post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and repeat-call profile is covered without the description. The description adds only that the return contains 'full text and parsed fields', which is modest extra context beyond the structured fields; no error or rate-limit behavior is disclosed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and result shape, with the id-provenance hint in a compact parenthetical. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the short description is close to sufficient. The only real gap is behavioral/edge-case guidance (missing or nonexistent id), which is not required but would complete the picture.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the HN comment id of the job post, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance ('from search_jobs'), telling the agent where a valid id comes from, which is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns) plus resource and scope: 'full text and parsed fields of one job post by its HN id'. It distinguishes itself from the list/search siblings implicitly by being a single-item fetch, though it never names a sibling as an alternative the way an ideal routing hint would.

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 parenthetical '(from search_jobs)' implies the workflow: obtain the id from search_jobs first, then call this tool. That is useful implied usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of what happens if the id is invalid or the post is gone.

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