linkedin_get_job

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden. It discloses the output content, including the 'See more' clamp expansion, which is a concrete behavior. However, it does not mention prerequisites like authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. For a read operation, this is acceptable but not exhaustive, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 efficient sentences. The first states the overall purpose, and the second lists the return fields with the clamp expansion noted. No fluff, front-loaded key info, and every sentence 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the return values in detail, providing adequate information for an agent to know what to expect. It does not cover prerequisites like active sessions (sibling check_session exists) or error cases, but for a simple GET with clear return fields, it is nearly complete.

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 single parameter, already specifying it accepts a job ID or URL. The description itself does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct given the schema's completeness.

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 tool retrieves full details for a single job posting and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, company, location, posted age, insights, complete description). This verb+resource focus distinguishes it from siblings like search, profile, and session 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 implies usage: it requires a job ID or URL to retrieve full details. The context is clear that this is for a single job, not searches or profiles, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Still, for a straightforward GET tool, the usage context is unambiguous.

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