Get a Quera job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the response includes related jobs and a full detail set, which is real value, but it says nothing about rate limits, errors for unknown ids, or output shape.

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, the payload description front-loaded, and the follow-up workflow note second. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields usefully compensates, and the read-only annotations remove mutation risk from consideration. Only edge behavior (invalid id, missing job) is left unaddressed.

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 single 'id' parameter already carries its format and an example ('wxvdk'). The description adds no further constraint on the id, so the schema does the work and the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get one Quera job posting') and enumerates the payload (description, requirements, benefits, skills, salary, deadline, related jobs), which makes it distinguishable from the sibling listing tool qr_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?

'Call after qr_jobs' gives explicit sequencing, and 'Use qr_company with the company slug for the employer's profile' routes the agent to the right sibling for a related need. It never states an exclusion for this tool itself, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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