indeed_job: GET /

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read-only operation ('Fetches') and lists the returned data fields, which implies no side effects or destructive actions. While it does not mention rate limits or authentication, the nature of the tool (simple GET of job details) makes the behavior sufficiently 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 concise, consisting of a header and two sentences that front-load the purpose and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's function and applicability.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what parameters it takes, what data it returns (including a detailed list of fields), and provides relevant use cases. No additional information is needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with the sole parameter 'url' described as 'The URL of the job vacancy to retrieve details for.' The description adds context by specifying it is a 'viewjob URL' from Indeed. This provides enough meaning beyond the schema, though the schema already covers the basics adequately.

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 it 'Fetches a single Indeed job posting by its viewjob URL' and enumerates the specific fields returned (title, company, salary, etc.). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'hasdata_indeed_listing_getJobListings' which likely returns a list of postings, thereby providing clear differentiation.

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 lists explicit use cases: 'ATS/CRM enrichment, compensation benchmarking, resume-to-JD matching with LLMs, and structured archival of postings discovered via the Indeed Listing endpoint.' It implicitly suggests when to use this tool (for detailed single job data) versus the listing sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the listing endpoint.

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