fetch_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the asynchronous queued nature, immediate server response with status, need for long-polling via get_workflow_result, and behavior for 'queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours' pending reasons. This goes well beyond basic expectations and provides critical behavioral context.

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 well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by concise paragraphs explaining the async workflow and pending states. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete for a tool with this complexity. It explains the full workflow, the immediate response shape, how to retrieve final results, and edge cases like outsideWorkingHours. The only omission is the final result structure, but that is delegated to get_workflow_result, which is acceptable.

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 for the single parameter jobUrl is 100%, and the schema already includes a description and example URL. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning that it 'opens' the job, which is already implied. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Open a LinkedIn job and retrieve its details such as company, location, salary, and description' with a specific verb and resource. It also includes an explicit API action reference (st.openJob action) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_jobs and fetch_company by focusing on individual job details.

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 gives substantial usage guidance for the async workflow: it explains to call get_workflow_result with the returned IDs, warns 'Do not retry the original tool while a workflow is still running', and provides specific handling for pendingReason values. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like search_jobs for when to use fetch_job vs search, though the purpose implicitly covers this.

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