get_job

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns the full job description and an error if the job is no longer listed. However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or authorization requirements, leaving some gaps for a simple fetch operation.

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 two sentences with essential information front-loaded: verb, resource, key arguments, and error case. No redundant or verbose elements.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, identification method, and error behavior. It could mention prerequisites or that the output is from the output schema, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that source and job_id come from a search result, clarifying their relationship. It does not provide individual constraints but gives practical usage context.

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 uses the verb 'Fetch' and specifies the resource 'one job' by composite key (source+id). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_jobs (which returns a list) and get_company (different resource).

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 implies usage context: 'from a search result's source and id', tying it to search_jobs. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the implied workflow is clear.

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