get_jd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns content, slug, and output paths, and that it can save files (via save_path). However, it doesn't clarify if saving is automatic or optional, or describe any side effects beyond returning data.

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 concise sentences. First sentence states purpose and return values. Second states constraints and optional parameter. Every word adds value, no fluff.

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 5 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description provides good context: how to invoke (exclusive choice), what it returns, and optional save behavior. It could briefly mention what the output paths look like or the file format, but it is mostly 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 description coverage is 100%, providing basic parameter info. The description adds meaningful constraints: 'exactly one of url, text, or file_path' (not in schema) and gives an example for slug ('CompanyName_Role'), which enhances usability beyond the schema alone.

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 purpose: 'Get a job description from a URL, pasted text, or a file. Returns JD content, slug, and output paths.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('job description'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list JDs or handle resumes.

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 explicitly says 'Provide exactly one of: url, text, or file_path,' which is a clear constraint. It also mentions optional slug. However, it doesn't provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_jds or get_skill.

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