linkedin_saved_jobs

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well. It explicitly declares read-only behavior in both directions (covering what destructiveHint would normally signal) and gives a strong edge-case guarantee: an empty result is stated explicitly and carries LinkedIn's own count, so an empty list can never be misread as a failed call. This is the kind of behavioral detail agents genuinely need.

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 opening line is profitably front-loaded, but the body is somewhat verbose for a single-parameter list tool and contains an internal inconsistency: the last sentence says 'this reads the two lists it names' when only one list (the Saved tab) is actually named. Phrases like 'when it was posted where LinkedIn shows it' are clunky. The redundancy around read-only scope could be tightened.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required inputs, an output schema present), the description is more than sufficient. It covers the safety profile, the exact scope, and the empty-result edge case, leaving no gap an agent needs to fill before calling it. The 'two lists' wording is a minor editorial slip, not a completeness failure.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (limit) with a complete description ('maximum rows to return (default 25, max 100)'). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable since the schema already documents the limit fully and there are no other parameters to explain. Baseline 3 is 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 first line uses a specific verb and resource ('List the jobs you have bookmarked on LinkedIn') that clearly identifies this as the read counterpart to the save/unsave siblings. It names exactly what is returned (title, company, location, post date, link) and scopes itself to the Saved tab, distinguishing it from search and job-detail tools.

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 states the tool reads only the Saved tab and explicitly notes that In Progress, Interview and Archived tabs are 'not exposed as tools.' The read-only framing ('no way to add to or remove from the list') implicitly routes agents away from linkedin_save_job/linkedin_unsave_job, though it does not name those alternatives directly or give an explicit when-to-use statement.

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