Get Job Details

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the read-only nature, such as rate limits, scope, or return handling, but the output schema likely covers return format.

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?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains zero unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 get-by-ID tool, the description is complete: the purpose is clear, the sole parameter is fully documented in the schema, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists to define the return structure. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema fully describes job_id with example LinkedIn IDs, achieving 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'specific job posting' adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already communicates, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves details for a specific LinkedIn job posting, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from search-focused siblings like search_jobs by emphasizing 'specific job posting' rather than discovery.

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 you have a specific job_id, and the schema's required parameter reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like search_jobs for finding jobs, leaving room for clearer guidance on when not to use this tool.

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