Get job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the matching rule (position needed if company has multiple rows), which is a useful behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose what happens when no match is found or when the company has multiple rows and position is omitted, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and matching criteria without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential matching logic and the condition on position. It does not specify the return format or error behavior, but given the low complexity and the schema descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the relationship between company and position (position needed if multiple rows), which adds slight context beyond the schema but does not provide significant new semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource ('full details for a single application') plus the matching key (company, optionally position). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs (lists many) and search_jobs (searches broadly).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need full details for one specific application identified by company. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear and the sibling tool names reinforce the distinction. No exclusions are necessary.

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