job_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about read-only semantics, permission requirements, or error behavior for an invalid identifier. The content enumeration adds some value, but return values are already covered by the output schema.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the content list is the most useful information and appears immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than padded.

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 detail-fetch tool the output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but the critical missing piece is how to obtain `seq` and how this tool relates to `jobs`. With no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, that omission leaves a real gap.

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 0%, so the single `seq` parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions that `seq` is the posting identifier obtained from the `jobs` listing, leaving the caller to infer it.

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 identifies the resource precisely as the job-posting body and enumerates the kinds of content it contains (qualifications, salary, deadline, submission method), which implicitly separates it from the sibling `jobs` listing tool. It lacks an explicit verb and never states it is the detail counterpart to `jobs`, but an agent can infer the purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that this must be called after `jobs` to resolve a posting identifier, and no exclusions or alternatives named. The agent must guess the relationship to `jobs` from the names alone.

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