get_job_details

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: unavailable postings are marked 'disappeared' in memory and contact persons are stripped before saving (data minimization). This memory-write side effect is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and adds genuine context. Return format is not described, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three compact sentences: content first, then side effects. Front-loaded with the payload description, no filler. Reasonably tight for the information conveyed.

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, return values need no elaboration, and the description still adds the memory/contact-handling behavior an agent should know. The only real gap is the undocumented aktualisieren flag, which is minor given the presence of the output schema.

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?

The refnr parameter is documented in the schema with an example (derived from search_jobs). The 'aktualisieren' boolean has no documentation in either schema or description; the memory-marking sentence hints at refresh behavior but never ties it to the parameter, leaving the 50% coverage gap only partially bridged.

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: retrieves full text and details of a BA job posting, enumerating the returned fields (description, industry, skills, compensation). This clearly differentiates it as the detail-fetch counterpart to a search, though it never names search_jobs explicitly in the description itself.

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 focuses on outputs and side effects; it offers no explicit guidance on when to call this versus siblings or the fact that refnr must originate from search_jobs (that hint lives only in the schema). Usage is left to be inferred from the name.

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