Get Saved Jobs

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, and the description complements this by specifying the authenticated user scope and the output type (job_ids). It adds practical context about how the return value is used, going beyond the bare annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides useful follow-up usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 (per context), the description sufficiently explains what it returns and how to proceed. It is complete for the tool's complexity, and the sibling tool list does not introduce ambiguity that needs addressing.

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?

The input schema provides a fully descriptive parameter (max_pages) with range and default, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any semantic detail beyond the schema, but also does not need to, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('job postings saved by the authenticated LinkedIn user'), and the scope (authenticated user's saved jobs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_jobs and get_job_details by specifying the 'saved' aspect.

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 clear usage context by noting that it returns job_ids for use with get_job_details, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to search_jobs or get_job_details, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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