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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what is returned but does not mention side effects, error handling, rate limits, or any read-only guarantees. The 'Fetches' wording implies a safe GET, but transparency is limited.

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: first states the core function, second lists return fields and use cases. It is concise, well-structured, and every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The relationship to the listing sibling is clarified, and no critical information 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?

The single parameter 'url' is clearly described in the schema as 'The URL of the job vacancy to retrieve details for.' The tool description reinforces this with 'viewjob URL,' leaving no ambiguity about what input is expected.

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?

Clearly states it fetches a single Indeed job posting by viewjob URL, lists the returned fields, and distinguishes itself from the listing sibling by focusing on a single posting. The verb 'Fetches' and resource 'Indeed job posting' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (ATS/CRM enrichment, compensation benchmarking, resume-to-JD matching, structured archival) and references the Indeed Listing endpoint as the discovery source, implying this tool is for postings already found. Does not explicitly contrast with Glassdoor job details, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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