get_job_details

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

The description discloses that the job description may be empty if content is protected, which is a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it covers the most important behavioral nuance well.

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 concise, with a clear heading and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, parameter explanation, examples, and return structure. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema (context signals indicate has_output_schema=true). The description explains the return structure (title, company, location, etc.) and notes the edge case of empty job description. For a simple retrieval tool, this covers all necessary context, leaving no obvious gaps.

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?

The input schema has no description for job_id (0% coverage). The description compensates by providing examples ('e.g., '4252026496', '3856789012''), which adds meaning and clarifies the format beyond the schema's bare type declaration. This helps the agent understand what a valid job ID looks like.

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 action ('Get job details') and the resource ('a specific job posting on LinkedIn'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_jobs and get_company_profile by focusing on a single posting via a job ID. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies that this tool is used when you have a specific job ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_jobs or get_company_profile. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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