linkedin_jobs_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description takes full responsibility. It discloses the 5-credit cost, shared /jobs endpoint, pagination behavior, and uncertain return format (noting missing documentation). This honesty about lack of example response is transparent, though it could mention rate limits or error handling.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by 'Notes' section for operational details. It is dense with information but avoids unnecessary verbosity. Minor improvement could be to integrate notes into a more flowing structure.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of all parameters, cost, endpoint behavior, and expected return fields. It acknowledges documentation gaps. For a complex search tool, it is fairly complete, though missing explicit error states or status codes.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter interactions (e.g., geoid vs location, search mode trigger) and providing defaults (geoid=92000000). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches and scrapes LinkedIn job listings with multiple filters (keyword, location, job type, experience level, work model). It distinguishes itself from 'linkedin_job_overview' by noting the shared endpoint and search mode trigger via 'field' without 'job_id'. This is specific and helps the agent differentiate.

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?

Description provides context on when to use this tool versus linkedin_job_overview (search mode vs overview) and explains the geoid/location relationship and pagination. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance on endpoint sharing and credits implies appropriate use cases.

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