linkedin_search_jobs

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

The description discloses that results are paged 25 at a time and that salary may be absent, but it does not mention authentication/session requirements or rate limits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and the existence of linkedin_check_session suggests a session prerequisite that is not mentioned. This is a notable gap.

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 about 100 words, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second paragraph covers pagination. It avoids redundancy and each sentence contributes value, such as noting the paging limit and the alternative tool. No fluff or repetition.

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 the return fields and pagination, and guides to linkedin_get_job, which covers essential operational details. However, it does not mention prerequisites like an active LinkedIn session (implied by check_session sibling) or error/edge-case behavior. Given the parameter count and no output schema, the description is fairly complete but misses these key operational aspects.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers (e.g., it does not clarify how sort values map to behavior or the exact format of location). Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 clearly states the tool searches LinkedIn job listings, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling linkedin_get_job by instructing to pass the returned job_id to that tool for full descriptions. This separates purpose from the retrieval sibling without opening the schema.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use linkedin_get_job for the full description rather than re-searching, which is a clear directive about when to use an alternative. It also implicitly distinguishes from profile/session tools by focusing on job search, so usage context is evident.

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