fetch_job_posting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It transparently discloses that URL fetching is 'best-effort,' that it 'never fails silently,' and returns a clear message on failure. It also explicitly lists the return fields {source, text, char_count}, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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?

The description is remarkably concise: four sentences covering purpose, parameters, behavior, and return format. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy. It is well-structured with the first sentence as an effective summary.

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, the description covers all relevant aspects: input modes, failure behavior (blocked/login-walled), and output structure ({source, text, char_count}). It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool without external documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by explaining the roles of 'url' (to fetch and strip a posting) and 'pasted_text' (for direct input). This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type/default. However, it could include more detail like URL format expectations or text length limits.

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 'Get a job posting as clean readable text.' It specifies two distinct modes (URL or pasted_text), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the verb 'fetch' and resource 'job posting' are specific enough to differentiate from tools like ats_gap_check or export_resume.

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 strong usage guidance by explaining when to use URL vs pasted_text, including the fallback behavior: 'if the site is blocked or login-walled, this returns a clear message asking the user to paste the text instead.' It doesn't compare to sibling tools, but within the tool itself, it gives clear context on effective use.

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