get_board_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does declare 'Read-only' — a genuine safety signal. However it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether the operation can fail for unpublished jobs, so the disclosure stops at the most basic trait.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose and the read-only trait are front-loaded, and the routing hint to get_job follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers purpose, safety, and sibling routing adequately. Gaps remain around error/failure conditions and permissions, which an agent might want before calling.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the note that job_id comes from list_board_jobs and that questions defaults to false. The description's phrase 'optional application questions' only restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies with no added value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a published job') and adds scope ('with optional application questions'). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_job, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (get_job) and the exact condition that selects it (internal job details: hiring team, custom fields). The schema further anchors the source of job_id to list_board_jobs, leaving nothing to inference.

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