indeed_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the persistent browser session and login requirement, and describes the output fields. However, it omits potential behavioral issues like rate limits, risk of detection, or that it only works for 'Easily Apply' jobs. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then behavioral detail, then output description. No wasted words; every sentence adds value. It is concise yet informative.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow and output. It explains the browser session lifecycle and what results include. However, it could be more complete by explaining how dry_run affects other parameters or error handling. It is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. It hints that candidate_profile comes from parse_cv, which adds context, but overall the parameters are sufficiently documented in the schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool searches Indeed and auto-applies using Indeed's native 'Easily Apply' flow. The verb 'search' and 'auto-apply' combined with specific resource 'Indeed' makes the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'linkedin_apply' (different platform) and 'auto_apply' (general vs platform-specific).

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 clear context: it's for Indeed's 'Easily Apply' flow, mentions the persistent browser session and first-time manual login. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if the job doesn't have Easily Apply) or mention alternatives like 'search_jobs' for broader searching. The usage is implied but lacks explicit exclusions.

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