linkfetch_get_job_by_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses input-robustness behavior (canonical slugs, locale-prefixed hosts, bare /jobs/view paths, urn:li: strings), which goes beyond a plain restatement, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, failure behavior for malformed or non-LinkedIn URLs, or what is returned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the input-format detail following. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

For a one-parameter fetch with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what inputs it accepts. It is still incomplete on the sibling relationship (linkfetch_get_job vs. this URL-based variant) and on any error or return-shape expectations, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 the schema's example already shows URL, URN, and bare-ID forms. The description adds the locale-prefixed host and /jobs/view/<id> variants, but this overlaps heavily with the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single job posting') plus the exact input domain (LinkedIn job URL or URN), so the agent knows what it returns and what it consumes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling linkfetch_get_job, which likely also fetches a job, leaving that routing decision to the agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: use it when you have a URL/URN rather than an ID, since the accepted input forms are enumerated. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and the near-identical sibling linkfetch_get_job is never named as the alternative.

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