search_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cleaned data in TOON format' which provides some output context, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (beyond the 'page' parameter), or what 'cleaned' entails. For a search tool with 17 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence that states the core functionality and output format. There's zero wasted language. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits important contextual information that would help the agent use the tool effectively.

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 complex search tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'TOON format' means, doesn't describe the structure of returned data, provides no guidance on parameter combinations or search strategies, and offers no behavioral context. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent has insufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 17 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting, though the description could have provided higher-level guidance about parameter combinations or typical usage patterns.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('LinkedIn jobs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_job' or 'search_companies', which would require explicit comparison. The mention of 'cleaned data in TOON format' adds specificity about the output format.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_job' (likely for retrieving a specific job) and 'search_companies' (for company searches), the agent receives no help in choosing between them. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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