get_indeed_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and explains that the expiry date distinguishes a live posting from a stale index entry, but it does not state read-only safety, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

It is two tightly written sentences with no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the supporting use case. The expiry explanation earns its place by clarifying why the field matters.

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 one-parameter detail tool with no output schema, the description identifies the main returned fields and the key expiry semantics. It stops short of describing error cases or the full response shape, but it is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 schema already explains that job_key is an alphanumeric key from a ?jk= URL with an example. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — 'Full detail for one Indeed posting' — and names the fields returned, including description, salary band, and expiry date. This clearly distinguishes the tool from search_indeed and from sibling get_*_job tools for other boards.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: retrieving a posting body that a UKG or PeopleSoft careers site gates behind a session. It does not explicitly name search_indeed as the prior step or state when not to use it, but the retrieval context is clear.

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