Read one posting

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context about what is read (locations, description, pay ranges) and how addresses work, but does not disclose deeper behavioral details like response size or optional parameter effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no fluff. It efficiently communicates the essential behavior and the source of required identifiers.

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 the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the core read intent and required identifiers, though it could more explicitly connect the optional include_compensation and description parameters to the overall behavior, but the schema covers these.

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 schema covers most parameter descriptions (75% coverage), and the description adds the meaningful context that both board and job_id are returned by search_jobs. However, it does not explain the include_compensation parameter or the description format options beyond what the schema already states, so it adds limited value.

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's function: reading one Ashby posting in full, including locations, description, and pay ranges. It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_jobs tool by emphasizing it reads a single posting rather than searching, and references how Ashby addresses postings.

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?

It explicitly states that both the board and identifier should come from search_jobs, giving clear prerequisite context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare it with alternatives like compare_compensation, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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