linkedin_get_company_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it lists 'open' jobs (filtering by status) but doesn't disclose pagination, sorting, or whether it requires authentication or has rate limits. Some behavioral context beyond annotations is provided but not extensive.

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?

One concise sentence that clearly states the action and scope. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it lacks additional structure like intended use cases.

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 read-only list operation with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate. It doesn't explain return format or pagination, but the output schema is absent and annotations cover safety. A bit more context about typical use cases (e.g., 'Use to populate a company's job board') would improve it, but it meets the minimum threshold.

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 100%, so both `limit` and `company` are already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb ('list') and resource ('open jobs posted by a specific company'), which is specific enough to understand the core function. It differentiates from siblings like `linkedin_get_saved_jobs` and `linkedin_search_jobs` by scoping to jobs posted by a specific company, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage context: when you need open jobs for a known company. It doesn't explicitly say when to use it vs `linkedin_search_jobs` or `linkedin_export_jobs`, but the company-specific scope is clear from the description and parameter name. No explicit exclusions or alternatives provided.

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