get_job_opening

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does declare 'Read-only' and enumerates what is returned (open/status, close_reason_id, custom fields, hired application_id), which is the key trait for a fetch tool. It omits error behavior (e.g., nonexistent opening_id) and permission requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short lines: purpose and read-only first, return shape second, ID-acquisition recipes last. Every sentence is load-bearing and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, safety posture, return contract, and prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to obtain job_id (list_jobs → match by name), which the schema only labels 'Greenhouse job ID', while opening_id guidance largely duplicates the schema text.

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+resource ('Get a specific opening on a job'), scoped as a single-resource fetch. The description and the id hints clearly distinguish it from list_job_openings, create_job_opening, and update_job_opening, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

It provides the concrete workflow for obtaining both required IDs ('list_jobs → match by name' and 'list_job_openings on the job'), which is real usage guidance rather than a bare statement. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing, so it does not reach a 5.

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