get_job_detail

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

Given no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'summarize' but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or handles missing jobs. The return format or effects are not described.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but could be slightly expanded to include more parameter details without losing conciseness.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's output, error handling, or how the boolean parameter affects behavior. The agent would lack critical context for correct usage.

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 0%. The description adds that the tool can be used by job id or URL, clarifying the two string parameters are alternatives, but it completely omits the include_application_brief parameter, leaving its purpose unexplained.

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 states the tool summarizes a specific job posting by job id or URL, which is clear and differentiates from sibling tools like health_check or search_entry_jobs. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings or in what scenarios to prefer job_id over job_url. The description lacks usage context.

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