get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the returned payload includes title, company, location, salary with note, contract type, date, full description, and a conditional `sections` block that appears 'when the employer uses the standard layout' — disclosing return-shape variability.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every line carries information (accepted id forms, return fields, conditional sections) with no filler.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description supplies the missing pieces: accepted id syntax and the conditional nature of `sections`. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 description coverage is 0% and the lone 'job' parameter is entirely undocumented in the schema, yet the description specifies accepted forms: bare offer id '5356737', prefixed 'O5356737', or a profesia.sk offer URL. This is exactly the compensation needed for a 0%-coverage parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full details of one job offer.' This implicitly separates it from the list-oriented siblings (search_jobs, company_jobs) by scoping to a single offer, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is obviously the lookup-by-id companion to search_jobs, but the description never says when to prefer this tool over searching or listing, nor any prerequisites or rate considerations.

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