Get a LinkedIn job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: a local side effect ('Marks the job as "viewed" locally') and a data-fidelity policy ('Fields LinkedIn does not show are omitted (never guessed)'). Auth requirements and failure modes are not covered, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the '[READ - no LinkedIn state is changed]' tag so the safety signal lands first. Every sentence adds distinct information (state safety, return content, field policy, local side effect, usage timing) with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it fetches, that remote state is untouched, that a local viewed-flag is set, how missing fields are handled, and when to call it. Return-value detail is rightly left to the output 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including format and URL constraints, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the url parameter itself, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when coverage is complete.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Opens one LinkedIn job posting and returns its full description and metadata') and scopes it to a single posting, which cleanly separates it from linkedin_search_jobs and linkedin_get_saved_jobs. What is returned is stated concretely, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear condition of use: 'Use it before analysing a job against the user's CV.' That is a real usage cue, but it does not name competing alternatives (e.g. search_jobs vs get_saved_jobs) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not routing a 5 requires.

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