linkedin_my_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that status is whatever LinkedIn displays, that the server does not infer or chase, and explicitly explains edge cases: empty results carry LinkedIn's count, and a mismatch between rows and count yields an error. This is exceptionally transparent about behavior.

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 multi-sentence and a bit longer than strictly needed, but every sentence adds value: scope, row contents, status behavior, and edge cases. It could be tightened slightly, but it is well-structured and front-loads the primary action.

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?

The description explains row contents (title, company, location, status, how long ago, job id, link), clarifies that statuses mirror LinkedIn's display, and covers empty-result and error disambiguation. Given the simple schema and the presence of an output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (limit), and the schema already documents its behavior fully. The description adds no further parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the scoring rules.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'List the jobs you have applied to on LinkedIn, with their status.' It names a specific resource (own job tracker's Applied tab) and the action (list), and clarifies it reads only your own applications. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like saved_jobs or search_jobs.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, the description makes the scope obvious: it reads only the Applied tab and cannot see applications made elsewhere. This is sufficient guidance for an agent to know when to invoke it versus other job-related tools.

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