get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Open' implies navigation/mutation of browser state, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires prior login, whether it changes navigation state, whether it's read-only, or any rate-limit considerations. For a browser-navigation style tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Perfectly sized for what it communicates.

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?

For a browser-navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what 'visible details' returns, whether login is required, and how it contrasts with related listing tools. With one parameter fully documented by the schema, basic invocation is clear, but the behavioral expectations and return value scope are under-specified.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'job' parameter as 'Job ID or full https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/... URL'. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for this single parameter.

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 'Open a LinkedIn job posting and return its visible details' clearly states the verb (open/return) and resource (LinkedIn job posting). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like search_jobs and get_saved_jobs by indicating it opens a specific posting rather than listing them. It's clear but could be more specific about what 'visible details' entails.

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 context (open and view a specific job posting) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It doesn't compare with search_jobs, get_saved_jobs, or easy_apply_job, nor does it state exclusions. A minimal acceptable level of implied usage exists but no explicit direction.

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