ashby_get_job_details

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states that the tool 'fetches the job, resolves the job posting description, and interview plan stages automatically.' It also lists the response structure, giving the agent a clear picture of what will be returned. No contradictions with annotations; it only adds context.

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 highly concise, consisting of three sentences: purpose, usage context, and response format. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential information with no redundant phrasing. Every sentence 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 simple, read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and response structure. Minor omissions like error handling are not critical for this straightforward operation, making it adequately complete.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter (job_id) as 'The job ID (UUID) to fetch details for.' with 100% coverage. The tool description restates that it's for a specific job but adds no new semantic details about the parameter itself. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: getting full details for a specific job, explicitly listing what's included (description, interview plan stages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ashby_list_jobs (which lists jobs) and ashby_get_application_details (which gets application details). The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource 'full details for a specific job' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this after ashby_list_jobs to understand a position's requirements and hiring pipeline.' This gives a clear trigger condition and sequencing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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