get_job_hunt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read operation, but there is no mention of response contents, error/not-found behavior, or permission requirements. It adds minimal behavior context beyond the verb.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple single-parameter getter, the description is minimally viable but leaves the return 'details' unspecified. Without an output schema, it would benefit from naming at least a few example fields or stating it returns the full job hunt object.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description repeats that the parameter is an ID without adding format, source, or usage details. The schema already provides the meaning, so no additional compensation is needed.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific job hunt'), with the scope ('by ID') distinguishing it from list_job_hunts and other resource-specific getters like get_job.

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 usage when a known job hunt ID exists, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_job_hunts for finding IDs or contrast with update_job_hunt. Usage context is present but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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