get_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context. It discloses that this 'Uses unofficial API' (a WARNING about reliability/rate limits) and specifies the return format ('job details including description, requirements, company info, etc.'). This goes beyond basic function to address implementation risks and output expectations.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then Args section with parameter explanation, then return details, and finally a WARNING. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, return content, and important behavioral warnings. The output schema means return values don't need explanation in the description, making this appropriately comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining 'job_id: LinkedIn job ID (from search results or job URL)'. This provides crucial semantic context about the parameter's source and format that the schema's type:string alone doesn't convey.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific job posting'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_jobs (which finds jobs) or get_job_skills (which focuses on skills). It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a specific job ID from search results or a URL. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like search_jobs for finding jobs without an ID, leaving some room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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