fetch_job_description

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so clearly: it opens pages in the browser, stores descriptions back, re-runs the requirements check against CVs, and detects closed vacancies. These are meaningful behavioral side effects beyond simply 'fetching'.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, batch limit, use case, side effects, and closed-vacancy detection are all covered without unnecessary filler. The core action is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It tells the agent when to use it, what side effects will occur, what constraints apply, and what additional detection it performs, leaving little ambiguity for correct invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema covers none of its semantics. The description compensates by specifying that it accepts 1-10 job_ids and advising batching to save round-trips. It does not fully describe ID format or edge cases, but it adds meaningful constraint information the schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch FULL job descriptions by opening browser pages. It further distinguishes itself from related job tools by targeting parser failures (null/short descriptions) and adding side-effect behavior like re-running CV checks.

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 explicitly says when to use it: for jobs where the parser returned null/short descriptions, common on Totaljobs/Reed. It also gives batching guidance. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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