edubase_get_organization_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only the identification mechanism (name or external identifier), and says nothing about not-found behavior or what is returned when the job doesn't exist. Minimum viable given annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though the trailing clause adds ambiguity rather than clarity when read against the schema's more precise wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is behavior on a failed lookup and the precedence rule when a name and an external identifier conflict, which matters for a two-key lookup 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that 'job' may be a name or a fallback external identifier, plus that 'organization' is an identification string. The description's phrasing 'identified by its name or external identifier' is actually more ambiguous than the schema, since it doesn't say which parameter the identifier applies to. Baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Get a job role of an organization') that clearly reads as a single-item lookup, which distinguishes it from list/mutation siblings like edubase_get_organization_jobs and edubase_patch_organization_job. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus edubase_get_organization_jobs (list) or edubase_get_organization (the parent org). The single-vs-list distinction is only inferable from the tool name and the singular 'a job role' phrasing.

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