jobs_details

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

Annotations provide limited safety signals (readOnlyHint=false), but the description clarifies the operation is a fetch and adds behavioral context: output contains personalized fields tied to authenticated user entitlements. It does not overpromise or contradict the annotations.

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 well-structured with clear Input/Output sections, uses bold labels effectively, and packs all necessary information into a compact block. No filler or redundant content.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema, and clear relationship to jobs_search, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, input provenance, and output scope. It does not need to explain return fields since an output schema is present.

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 already describes job_id as the unique identifier from jobs_search. The description reinforces that it must be the exact `id` string from a search result, which adds marginal precision but no new semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Fetches'), names the resource ('full details for one job'), and ties it to the ID from jobs_search. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools as the 'deeper view behind a search result'.

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 explicitly states when to use it: with a job ID returned from jobs_search. It implies the complementary relationship to jobs_search but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.

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