JobDataLake MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'full details' but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., if the job ID is invalid), response format, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and leaves behavioral traits largely unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get full details') and lists key data points. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage hints, but this is minor.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It mentions what details are included but doesn't explain the return structure, potential errors, or dependencies. For a read operation with no structured output, more context on the response is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'job_id' documented as 'Job handle or ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing hints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('job listing'), listing key data fields like description, requirements, salary, and apply link. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_jobs' (which likely returns multiple results) and 'find_similar_jobs' (which suggests broader matching), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more precise about differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a job ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'search_jobs' (for broader queries) or 'find_similar_jobs' (for related listings). Usage is implied by the focus on 'specific job listing,' but explicit context is lacking.

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