search_linkedin_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable context such as the sorting behavior ('LinkedIn's own sort is not honoured...') and the public nature. However, it does not disclose rate limits, read-only status, or potential changes to the endpoint.

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 four concise sentences: stating purpose, listing filters, describing output, and referencing a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 13 parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers main functionality, return values, and sibling relation. It is mostly complete but could explicitly mention pagination behavior beyond what is in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists filter categories but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions; the 'no account needed' note is tool-level, not parameter-specific.

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 it searches LinkedIn's public job board, specifying 'no account needed'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `get_linkedin_job` by noting that the latter provides full descriptions, creating a clear role separation.

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 provides context on when to use this tool ('no account needed') and recommends a sibling tool for full descriptions, but does not explicitly exclude other sibling search tools or provide comprehensive when-not-to-use guidance.

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