usajobs_detail

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds behavior beyond that by enumerating specific return contents: duties, qualifications, salary, location, application instructions, and deadlines. This helps the agent know what to expect without needing an output schema.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a compact list of content categories. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 single-parameter detail tool with a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficiently complete: it specifies how to invoke it (via control number) and what it returns. It doesn't discuss error cases or formatting, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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% and the parameter description already states 'Job control number from usajobs_search results'. The description only repeats this concept, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('federal job listing'), with a clear method ('by its control number'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool usajobs_search, which returns search results rather than full details.

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 context: the control number comes from usajobs_search, so the tool is the detail follow-up to a search. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear, so it earns a 4.

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