job_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so exceptionally well. It discloses a potentially surprising side effect: fetched data is 'written back to the job record.' It also includes a detailed security warning about untrusted_posting_text, third-party data, prompt injection risks, and the possibility of crafted postings manipulating profile tools.

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 structured effectively: purpose first, then parameter semantics, then side effects, then security. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the security section is important enough to warrant its length. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, an output schema to describe return values, and no annotations, so the description covers all remaining gaps: input meaning, behavioral side effects, and security precautions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool safely and correctly is missing.

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 input schema only defines 'job' as a string with zero description coverage, but the tool description fully compensates: 'job is a stored URL, or a portal job id.' This single sentence gives the agent enough semantic understanding to provide the correct argument, which is especially valuable because schema coverage is 0%.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a posting's full text and resolve remote status and salary.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_jobs or list_jobs by focusing on individual posting detail and enrichment. The additional context about writing results back to the job record further clarifies its unique role.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: use this when you need a posting's full text, its remote verdict, or salary band, and it explicitly notes that this is how a job earns a trustworthy remote_status. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare with alternatives, but the use case is specific enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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