get_job_details

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely valuable context: the returned description is untrusted third-party text to be treated as data, not instructions. It omits what verify_link does to latency or failure modes, and says nothing about stale or removed postings.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the prompt-injection warning. Nothing is redundant; the only mild cost is that the warning occupies a standalone block without connecting to a specific field.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a two-parameter read tool the remaining risk is untrusted content, which the description explicitly addresses.

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 both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the id format example and the meaning of verify_link, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch full details for one posting, explicitly including the work-authorization analysis, which separates it from search_jobs (the listing tool). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the analyze_work_authorization sibling, so the boundary there is left to inference.

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 only implied: the schema note that job_id comes 'from search_jobs' sketches the search-then-detail flow, but the description never says when to call this instead of analyze_work_authorization or list_sources. There are no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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