glassdoor_job: GET /

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It explains the tool fetches details by URL and returns many fields, but it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The behavior is partially transparent.

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 paragraph of four sentences. It front-loads the purpose and immediately lists returns and use cases. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the title but overall efficient.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and why to use it. It is complete enough for a simple fetch operation, though it lacks details on potential errors.

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% with the single 'url' parameter already described as the job vacancy URL. The description repeats this without adding extra semantic nuance, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 the verb 'Fetches' and the resource 'Glassdoor job posting by its vacancy URL'. It lists the specific data returned (title, company, salary, etc.) and outlines use cases, making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like the listing tool.

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 provides explicit use cases such as 'ATS ingestion', 'job aggregators', and 'comp benchmarking', offering clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like the Glassdoor listings tool.

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