linkedin_search_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of an approved scope adds authorization context. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or what happens if the scope is missing, leaving significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 short sentences, the first front-loading the action and scope, the second adding the essential prerequisite. No wasted words; every clause earns its place. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., job listings, IDs, metadata) or any result limits. It also omits details like sorting or default behavior. The prerequisite is helpful, but the lack of output context leaves the agent uncertain about the return shape, making it only partially complete.

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%—all four parameters have descriptive text in the schema. The description merely restates the same filter categories without adding format, defaults, or interdependencies. It neither compensates for a gap nor adds value beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('job postings'), and enumerates the primary filters (keywords, location, company, job type). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_search_people, which targets people rather than jobs.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for job postings and adds a critical prerequisite ('Requires an approved jobs product/scope'), which tells the agent when it is permissible to call. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternative tools (e.g., use search_people for people), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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