get_job_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly frames the tool as a read-only extraction operation and lists what gets extracted, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, network dependency, output format, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and extracted fields, and the second explains the purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the key information: what is extracted and why it is used. It stops short of specifying the exact return shape or handling of invalid links, but the listed fields and the register_posting connection cover most of what an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about what the extracted data is used for, but it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions for 'site' and 'link'.

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 uses a specific verb ('추출합니다' – extracts) and names the resource (job posting detail page) plus the exact fields extracted: 주요업무/자격요건/우대사항/마감일/근무지. It also explicitly ties the tool to register_posting, which distinguishes it from siblings like search_jobs and send_collection_summary.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: 'register_posting에 넘길 입력을 만들 때 사용합니다' (use when creating input to pass to register_posting). It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the stated use case is enough for an agent to route correctly among the listed siblings.

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