careers_job

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it never starts applications or follows external sites, which matters for an agent deciding whether this tool can trigger side effects. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's content, the second provides actionable pagination instructions, and the third sets a critical boundary. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 a moderately complex input schema, an output schema, and rich annotations. The description covers pagination and side-effect limitations sufficiently. It could name the sibling careers_jobs tool to make selection easier, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 description carries the burden. It explains the meaning of section=description and text_offset chunking, and the enumerated output fields clarify what job_id retrieves. However, it does not explicitly elaborate on the other section enum values, leaving some room for inference.

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?

Description clearly identifies the resource (a single job) and the information it returns: description, requirements, deadline, application methods, and source link. It distinguishes itself from sibling careers_jobs by using the singular job focus and by describing a detail-viewing purpose rather than a list/search 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?

The description provides concrete guidance for handling long descriptions: use section=description and follow next_offset as text_offset in 4,000-character chunks. It also explicitly states what the tool never does, preventing misuse, though it does not name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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