get_job_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'retrieves' content, indicating a read-only operation, and lists what will be returned. However, it does not clarify the response structure, error behavior, or any prerequisites like authentication. It adds some behavioral context beyond the name, but not enough to fully illuminate side effects or failure modes.

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 that begins with the action verb and then lists the retrieved fields in a compact enumerative style. It contains no filler or repetition, and the most important qualifier ('specific vacancy') appears early. It could arguably be split for readability, but it is still efficient and front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations. The description effectively communicates the tool's purpose and the main content retrieved, but it does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON object vs. plain text) or any error conditions. For a straightforward get-by-ID tool, the missing output details are a notable gap, though not critical given the tool's 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% and the parameter description clearly explains the accepted formats (UUID or slug with an example). The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter beyond referring to a 'specific vacancy', so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the 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?

The description identifies a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precise resource ('a specific vacancy'), and then enumerates the distinct content it returns (description markdown, compensation, requirements, ATS source, verified application link). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_jobs or list_companies, which operate at a different scope, so an agent can tell when to use this tool.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the siblings. It implies the need for a job ID or slug through the parameter, but it does not state conditions such as 'use when you need full details for a known job' or 'do not use for searching'. There are no alternative recommendations or exclusions.

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