fetch_job_description

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

Discloses behavioral traits such as reliance on public posting APIs and possible error returns for unsupported URLs or disabled APIs. Without annotations, the description covers failure modes well but lacks an explicit statement that the operation is read-only.

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?

Four sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, followed by supported platforms, a rationale for usage, and error handling. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, supported inputs, error conditions, and usage rationale. No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 single 'url' parameter is described in context: expects an ATS URL from supported platforms. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type definition, compensating for 0% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it fetches a posting's title, location, and plain-text JD from ATS URLs. Specifies supported platforms (Ashby, Greenhouse, Lever) and explains why the JD is preferred over title for scoring, distinguishing it from sibling 'score_job'.

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?

Provides explicit context on when to use (to get JD text for scoring) and includes important caveats about error handling and not assuming a role is closed based on board 404. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives among sibling tools.

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