get_job_details

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, which is safe, but the description doesn't disclose any return format, error behavior, or access requirements. It's a simple read, so the lack of detail is not critical, but it could be more transparent about the output structure.

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, extremely concise and direct. It provides the necessary information without any fluff. The purpose is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema specifics), the description is sufficiently complete. The agent likely knows what job details are (e.g., title, status, maybe timestamps) from the output schema (not provided to me but present in the actual definition). Since there is an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling tools.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema doesn't explain what 'job_id' is beyond its type. The description adds the meaning that the tool retrieves details based on this ID, which is essential. Since there is only one parameter and a clear description, the agent understands what to provide. However, it doesn't go beyond that basic meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('job details') with a clear parameter (by ID). It clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_company_details' or 'search_jobs', though the focus on 'job details' is somewhat distinctive.

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 tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that this is for fetching a single job's details, while 'search_jobs' is for querying, or 'filter_jobs_by_skills' for filtering. No exclusions, but also no clear context to differentiate.

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