UK Job Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reinforce safety. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond what's provided by annotations and schema (e.g., rate limits, authentication).

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists provided fields and usage context. It is front-loaded with the action and includes a clear usage note, though it could be slightly broken into bullet points for even better readability.

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 simple parameter detail lookup, the description covers all relevant returned fields (title, company, salary, contract type, etc.). With an output schema likely documenting structure, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter job_id is well-documented in the schema with description and example. The description briefly reiterates the source of the ID but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get full details of a UK job listing by ID' and lists the specific fields returned. It explicitly connects to sibling tool reed.search by noting job IDs come from there, distinguishing it as a detail endpoint.

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 instructs to use job IDs from reed.search results, implying this tool is for getting details after a search. While it doesn't explicitly say 'do not use for searching', the context and sibling name 'jobs.reed.search' make the intended workflow clear.

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