get_job_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (duties, qualifications, how to apply), which is sufficient for a read operation. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and contents efficiently. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return contents (duties, qualifications, how to apply). For a simple tool with one parameter, it is fully complete.

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% with a clear description for job_id. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond 'including duties…' which does not relate to the parameter. 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 tool gets full details for a specific federal job posting, listing included content (duties, qualifications, how to apply). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_jobs (list) and compare_jobs (comparison) by specifying 'full details' for one job.

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 usage when a specific job_id is available and full details are needed. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, the context of siblings (search_jobs, find_matching_jobs) makes the intended use clear.

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