get_job_cover_letter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about what happens when no cover letter has been saved for the job (empty result, error, or null), nor any permission or storage-location context.

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 short sentence with the scope qualifier ('for a specific job') front-loaded after the core verb-resource phrase. No filler, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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?

The tool itself is simple (one required param, no output schema, no nested objects), so little is strictly required. However, for a 'get saved X' tool the missing edge-case behavior (no saved letter) is the one piece of context an agent would actually need.

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?

Only one parameter (job_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline for a fully-covered single parameter.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (saved cover letter) scoped to a specific job. The word 'saved' implicitly separates this from the sibling generate_cover_letter, but the distinction is never made explicit.

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 versus generate_cover_letter, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a cover letter must already have been generated and stored). The agent must infer the retrieval-vs-generation distinction from context.

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