Get Job Details

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, which already signal a safe, potentially dynamic operation. The description adds minimal context (details for a specific posting) but doesn't contradict annotations. Given the bar is lower with annotations present and the description aligns without adding much extra, a 4 is appropriate for not contradicting and providing a basic scope.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is adequate. It states the resource and scope but doesn't elaborate on what 'details' include; however, the output schema would presumably cover that, and the sibling context is clear enough. A 4 is justified as it's complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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%, with a clear description for job_id including examples. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage the baseline is 3. It doesn't compensate with additional usage hints, but the schema is self-sufficient.

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 it retrieves job details for a specific LinkedIn job posting, using the clear verb 'Get' plus the resource 'job details' and scope 'for a specific job posting on LinkedIn.' It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_jobs or get_saved_jobs, though the focus on a single job posting is implied.

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 implies a use case: when you have a specific job ID and need full details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus search_jobs or get_saved_jobs, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the job_id parameter.

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