get_job_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the description is converted to markdown and supports truncation. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication, or what happens with invalid identifiers. For a read-only getter this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is clear and directly addresses parameters, though it could be slightly more compact. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values. The tool has only two parameters (one optional) and no nested objects, so the description covers the essential input semantics and behavior. Minor gaps like edge cases (e.g., what happens with very short descriptions) exist but are not critical for a simple getter.

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 schema provides no description coverage (0%), but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: identifier accepts a URL or slug with a concrete example, and description_max_chars controls truncation length. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states it fetches the full details of a single XING job posting, which distinguishes it from the sibling search tools. It uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'one XING job posting' with details.

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving a specific job given a URL or slug. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use search_jobs first to find jobs', the singular focus and presence of sibling search tools imply the appropriate use case. No exclusions are mentioned, but the purpose itself is a strong signal.

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