enrich_job_profile

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

Annotations already communicate read-only and open-world nature, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the credit cost (2 credits) and summarizing the returned fields. It does not cover error cases, but for a simple, read-only enrichment tool this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and no wasteful text. It conveys what the tool does, what it returns, and its cost in a compact and readable way.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description is mostly sufficient: it states the source URL, key return fields, and cost. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by listing example fields, though 'and more' is vague and no URL formatting details are included.

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 already fully documents the only parameter 'url' as a 'Professional network job posting URL' at 100% coverage. The description reinforces the URL-source concept but does not add additional parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get structured data of a job posting from its professional network URL.' It clearly differentiates this tool from the many sibling enrichment tools focused on companies, people, schools, or job searches. It also lists concrete returned fields like job title, description, company, and location.

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 implies that the tool should be used when a professional network job posting URL is available, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives. With 24 sibling tools, some explicit contrast with enrich_job_search or other lookup tools would improve guidance.

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