get_job

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a JSON string, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description is minimal, lacking transparency about side effects or prerequisites.

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 very concise: three lines with purpose, args, and returns. Every part is useful, no fluff. The structure is clear and front-loaded, with the core action stated first.

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 existence of an output schema, the return description is adequate. However, the description lacks context about error scenarios, prerequisite knowledge (e.g., job_id from list_jobs), and differentiation from siblings. It is minimally complete for a simple get tool but does not fully address agent decision-making.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the semantic meaning for the single parameter job_id: 'The unique ID of the job', which clarifies its purpose. While more detail (e.g., format, source) could improve, the current addition is valuable and 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?

The description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific job/position', which specifies the verb (Get) and resource (job). The additional return details ('full job details including description, requirements') further clarify the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_job_contacts or list_jobs.

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. Siblings include get_job_contacts, get_job_history, and list_jobs, but the description does not differentiate usage contexts, such as 'use this after obtaining a job ID from list_jobs' or 'use other tools for specific subsets'.

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