indeed_job: GET /

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

With no annotations, the description carries responsibility: it clearly frames the operation as a read-only 'fetches' and enumerates all returned data. It could have added notes on invalid URLs or availability limits, but for a simple GET-style tool the behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded, but the opening line 'Get Indeed Job Details' repeats what the next sentence and the title already cover. The rest is focused and useful.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the main returned sections: title, company, location, salary, employment type, posted date, requirements, benefits, and apply URL. It does not address error/edge behavior, but with one parameter this is a minor gap.

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%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds signifficant extra meaning by saying the URL must be the 'viewjob URL' and implying the source is the Indeed endpoint result set, which goes beyond the generic parameter text.

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: it fetches a single Indeed job posting by its viewjob URL. It also differentiates from the sibling endpoint by noting that these are postings discovered via the Indeed Listing endpoint.

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 lists intended use cases such as ATS/CRM enrichment, compensation benchmarking, and resume-to-JD matching. It indirectly positions the tool as the detailed single-listing complement to the listing endpoint, though it does not crank out exact when-not-to-use rules.

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