Get my LinkedIn saved jobs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a non-obvious side effect: every returned saved job is written into local tracking (localStatus becomes 'saved' unless already further along). It also explains the hasMore pagination contract, which is behavioral information the annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with a bracketed [READ] marker and a single dense paragraph; every sentence carries information (scope, side effect, pagination). The sentences are long and pack several ideas together, which slightly hurts skimability but there is 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?

Scope, the local-tracking side effect, and the pagination loop are all covered, and the presence of an output schema means return values need no further explanation. An agent has everything required to call this correctly.

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% and the schema already documents maxResults' 1-25 range and default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning by tying maxResults to hasMore and the retry pattern, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads LinkedIn's own Saved-jobs list') and explicitly scopes it ('jobs actually saved on the real account right now, not just local tracking'), which separates it from the local-tracking siblings. An agent can identify the tool's job 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 clear context for use: read the real saved list, and if hasMore=true call again with a larger maxResults. It implicitly contrasts with local tracking but never names the alternative sibling (e.g. linkedin_list_tracked_jobs) as an explicit routing choice, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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