get_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves a job posting by id, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what the return format is, or any error/edge cases. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, and the key information (the action and resource) is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise and well-structured, earning full marks for this dimension.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should include the return type, read-only status, and any caveats. It lacks all of these, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke without further assumptions. For a simple tool it is still under-specified.

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 schema has no description for job_id, and the tool description provides an example 'J-101', which gives a format hint but does not explain the semantics of the id or how to obtain it. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter name, and given 0% schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'job posting', and provides an example id format 'J-101'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_jobs (which searches) and get_candidate (different entity). However, it does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid confusion, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the context in which get_job should be preferred over search_jobs or other tools, leaving the agent to infer that it's for fetching a specific job by id. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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