job_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the payload contents. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, what happens for an unknown or unevaluated job_id, or whether the score reasons/gaps/classification fields are null before job_evaluate has run.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise — there is no leading verb or subject to anchor the sentence. Brevity here costs clarity rather than buying it.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral detail and it delivers one line. For a tool whose value depends on evaluation state (score reasons, gaps, classification), the absence of any dependency or failure-mode note leaves the agent under-informed.

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% and the single parameter job_id has no title beyond 'Job Id' and no description. The description never mentions the identifier, its source (jobs_list, jobs_search, job_add), or its format, so it adds nothing to the schema for the one input that matters.

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 is a noun phrase ('Full posting plus score reasons, gaps and classification') with no verb, so the retrieval action is only inferable from the name job_get. It does communicate what content comes back, which hints at the resource, but it never distinguishes this from sibling readers like jobs_fetch, jobs_search, jobs_list, or job_score.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to call job_get versus job_score (which presumably computes the score) or jobs_fetch/jobs_search. An agent must guess whether the score reasons exist only after evaluation, and whether gaps/classification come from learning_gaps or job_evaluate.

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