get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the candidate_home concept (the company's own sign-in page, Workday only, per-company account) and the breadth of returned data, plus the schema documents multi-match error behavior. It stops short of describing output format or size, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the return inventory, then the routing sentence. The long middle enumeration is dense but each item is a distinct fact an agent needs to judge relevance; only minor trimming is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so comprehensively — including the non-obvious candidate_home field. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to call this 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?

There is a single parameter and the schema description already covers it at 100% (composite key, bare posting id, or company name, with multi-match error behavior). The description only restates 'by key or posting id', adding no syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific retrieval verb and resource ('Everything about one job, by key or posting id') and then enumerates the payload: posting text, pay, tracking, fit score, referral people, skill gaps, application package, candidate_home. It is immediately distinguishable from get_application_package and get_interview_prep, which it names.

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?

Explicitly gives the use case ('tailor a resume or decide whether to apply') and routes to the right siblings with conditions ('for only what was sent use get_application_package, and for a call or interview use get_interview_prep'). Nothing is left to inference.

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