Get Job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach profile is covered. The description adds that the posting's body text is included (a useful content hint), but says nothing about failure modes for a bad job_id, cross-source behavior, or token/cost concerns of pulling full descriptions.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler — the resource and its scope come first. It is arguably terse for a tool whose value is the full posting body, but nothing is wasted.

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 not be enumerated, and the annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. Combined with 100% schema coverage on three simple parameters, the only real omission is guidance on when to prefer this over a search call.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented (including the source-specific job_id format note). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 names a specific resource ('one posting') and states the scope of the return ('Full detail ... including its description'), which distinguishes it from the list-oriented search_jobs/search_many siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one posting' suggests fetching a single record after a search, and the schema reinforces this by telling the agent to take job_id/source from a search result. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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