Get Saved Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds a useful detail that the tool returns job_ids for further lookup, but it does not disclose pagination specifics, rate limits, or empty-result behavior. This is adequate but not rich, matching the baseline for tools with these annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff, with the primary purpose front-loaded and a clear follow-up usage note. Every word adds value.

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 tool with one optional parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It states what it does, what it returns, and how to use that return value, covering all essential use-case context.

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 only parameter, max_pages, is fully described in the schema with its range and default. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric when schema coverage is high (100%).

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('job postings saved by the authenticated LinkedIn user'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_jobs (searches all jobs) and get_job_details (details for a specific job) by focusing on saved posts, and it even hints at a downstream workflow with get_job_details.

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 clearly states what it does and mentions that returned job_ids can be passed to get_job_details, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or directly contrast it with alternatives like search_jobs, though the context of 'saved' makes the use case clear.

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