LinkedIn job listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only offers a generic statement about 'structured data' and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether the URL must be publicly accessible, rate limits, or what the response contains beyond being structured. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely short but under-specified; it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. While it is not verbose, it sacrifices meaning for brevity, making it less helpful than a slightly longer, more explicit description.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It gives no indication of the return structure, possible errors, or other behavioral context. The tool's simplicity does not excuse such sparse information.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'url' parameter with the description 'LinkedIn job listing URL'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics, but per the baseline for high coverage, a score of 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?

The description 'Structured LinkedIn job listing data' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the title and tool name without providing an action verb like 'retrieve' or 'scrape'. It vaguely indicates the resource type but fails to state what the tool actually does with the given URL.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool relative to other LinkedIn data tools (e.g., person profile, posts) or any prerequisites. The description only states what the data is, not when to invoke it.

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