linkfetch_get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload fields (description, salary, workplace type, company, application links), compensating for the absent output schema. But it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on a missing/invalid ID.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return payload, and alternative routing. The most important information (what it does and how to key it) is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the return payload, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. Only the lack of auth/error behavior keeps it short of fully complete.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents format and example. The description reinforces 'numeric LinkedIn job ID' but adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single job posting') plus the keying mechanism ('numeric LinkedIn job ID'). It also names the sibling it is distinct from (linkfetch_get_job_by_url), so an agent can differentiate it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to linkfetch_get_job_by_url 'if you only have a LinkedIn URL', which is a concrete when-to-use-the-alternative rule. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over linkfetch_search_jobs, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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