Get Job Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The 'get' verb and stated return content (description, criteria, status) imply a safe read, and the accepted-input note is useful, but there is no disclosure of rate limits, auth requirements, or error behavior for missing/invalid IDs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the return content before the input constraint, with no wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the one parameter is well clarified. The only real gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance relative to search_jobs, which keeps it from a 5.

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% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does so well by clarifying that job_id_or_url accepts either a LinkedIn job ID or any posting URL, which meaningfully extends the bare parameter name.

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?

Clear verb (get) and resource (job details) plus the specific fields returned: full description, criteria, and open/closed status. It is distinguishable from search_jobs since it operates on a known job ID or URL rather than performing a search, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool takes a job ID or posting URL, so an agent knows it's for looking up an already-known job. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or condition selecting it over search_jobs or evaluate_job_fit.

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