get_linkedin_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes that applying requires an account, but lacks information on rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. The tool is a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and essential caveat. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the key output fields and a practical limitation. However, it does not mention potential errors or response format, which could be useful for completeness.

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 has 100% schema description coverage with a well-described job_id parameter. The tool description adds further context by explaining how to obtain the job ID from a LinkedIn URL, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 retrieves full public detail for a single LinkedIn job posting, listing specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by being a detail fetcher, though not explicitly differentiating from get_alibaba_product or get_aliexpress_product which are similar in nature but for different platforms.

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 mentions that applying requires a LinkedIn account, which provides some context, but it does not guide on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_linkedin_jobs. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines are provided.

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