get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add semantics — and it does: it discloses that applicants data is scoped to the last two weeks and includes applicant background, and that both extra flags are restricted to 104-sourced data. It still omits what happens if a flag is requested on a non-104 job (error vs empty).

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?

Two dense clauses, zero filler, with the primary purpose and the full-text flag front-loaded. The telegraphic style (＝, abbreviations) is efficient but slightly terse for non-Chinese-reading agents.

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 no output schema, the description must frame the return payload; '職缺完整內容' gives a rough idea, but there is no indication of structure or size difference between full=True and default. The required job_id and the failure mode for restricted flags are the notable gaps for a four-parameter read 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It defines three of the four booleans (full, applicants, similar) with concrete semantics, including a time window for applicants, but says nothing about job_id — the one required parameter — such as its format or that it comes from search_jobs.

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+resource: retrieving the complete content of a job posting (職缺完整內容), and immediately clarifies the 'full' variant. It is implicitly distinguishable from search_jobs, but never names or contrasts any sibling, 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?

Says when to flip 'full' (full=True 看全文) and flags a hard constraint that applicants/similar only work on 104 data. However there is no guidance on when to use the applicants or similar flags versus calling search_jobs or get_company instead, leaving routing to inference.

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