Find Job by URL

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the matching algorithm (ignores ?utm_*/?gh_src=/#apply, treats /apply and /application as the same posting), what counts as a non-match, and the meaning of found=False. That is exactly the extra context a caller needs.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and return shape, then layers matching rules and the dedupe caveat. It is dense and information-rich with no wasted sentences, though the parenthetical lists make it slightly heavier to parse than necessary.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, matching edge cases, return keys, and the relationship to the authoritative dedupe path. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 0% for the single source_url parameter, but the description compensates with real semantics: tracking parameters and fragments need not be stripped, and the posting's own sub-paths are normalized. It clarifies what input is acceptable rather than just naming the field.

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?

Opens with the concrete question it answers ("is this posting already captured?") and names the resource (posting-equality source_url lookup) and the return shape. An agent can immediately tell it apart from siblings like store_extracted_jd, list_jobs, and get_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?

Explicitly frames when to use it (before an extraction, to skip work when found=True) and names the alternative that dedupes authoritatively (store_extracted_jd via already_existed). It also states the failure mode: search-results or employer-index URLs match nothing. Nothing is left to inference.

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