List locally tracked jobs

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world hints. The description adds that no LinkedIn state is changed and that it operates on LOCAL tracking only, reinforcing that it doesn't touch the remote platform. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the output schema likely covers return shape, so the gap is minor.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the READ qualifier and local-only scope, then the usage guidance. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 simple list tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context: local-only scope, status filtering, and usage intent. It could mention pagination or default behavior for limit, but those are minor given the output schema exists.

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 0%, so the schema itself provides no help. The description partially compensates by explaining the 'status' parameter meaning (local status values like discovered, viewed, etc.) and implying 'limit' via 'optionally by local status'. But it doesn't explain 'limit' or clarify that status is a filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial compensation.

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 ('Lists jobs from LOCAL tracking'). It clarifies the local-only scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like linkedin_search_jobs or linkedin_get_saved_jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use for LinkedIn-side job retrieval.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use it to avoid re-presenting jobs the user already handled.' This gives a concrete when-to-use scenario. But it doesn't contrast with alternatives like linkedin_get_saved_jobs or explain when NOT to use it (e.g., to fetch remote jobs).

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