fetch_job_posting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well on scope: it works on any job board including ones without a public API, and it discloses the anti-enumeration constraint, which is genuine behavioral guidance beyond structured data. It is silent on failure modes (paywalled/blocked pages), auth needs, and rate limits, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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, both earning their place, front-loading the scope ('ONE ... URL') before the anti-loop prohibition. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there is only one required parameter. Scope, input constraint, and the misuse case are all covered; nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the URL must be a single posting page (not a listing or search page) and must already have been found by a human. That constrains valid inputs beyond the schema's generic 'A single job-posting URL.'

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 (fetches/extracts) and resource (one job-posting URL, its readable text), and scopes it with 'ONE' and 'generically'. The wording clearly separates it from search_jobs, which is the enumeration-style tool.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('a single posting a human found manually') and explicit when-not ('never call it in a loop to enumerate a site's listings'). The alternative behavior is named, so an agent can route correctly without inference.

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