Search Jobs

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, indicating this is a read-only operation. The description adds minimal extra context about the returned job_ids being used for get_job_details, which is helpful. It doesn't contradict 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 brief, two sentences, and immediately states the core function. The second sentence provides a valuable integration note about get_job_details. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description is adequately complete for a search operation. The integration note about job_ids adds important context. Minor gap: could mention if results are paginated or any default sorting, but not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a helpful note about job_ids for get_job_details. The description mentions 'job_ids' but doesn't detail all parameters, which is acceptable since the schema covers everything else.

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 starts with 'Search for jobs on LinkedIn' which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by describing it simply. However, it could do more to differentiate from other search tools like search_people or search_posts, though the context of 'jobs' helps.

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 doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, but the context of searching LinkedIn jobs is clear. It doesn't give exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list shows search tools for other entities, making the usage intent somewhat implicit.

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