im_get_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read operation ('Get full details') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires no specific authentication beyond normal access, or mention any rate limits or side effects. The listed fields give partial behavioral insight.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and included details. No wasted words. However, it could be slightly improved by front-loading the key action and structuring the list of details more explicitly.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the tool's purpose and enumerates key data fields. Missing are any notes on return format, error handling, or performance, but these are less critical given low complexity.

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% (job_id with description 'Job requisition identifier'). The description adds the qualifier 'IntelliMatch job' which is already clear from the tool name, so it provides minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('full details of an IntelliMatch job requisition') and enumerates specific included fields (requirements, compensation, hiring manager, open headcount). This distinguishes it from siblings like im_search_jobs or im_get_open_jobs_db which serve different purposes.

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 tells what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus siblings, e.g., im_search_jobs for searching or im_match_candidates_for_job for matching. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool's name.

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