Apply to a LinkedIn job (Easy Apply only)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the two-phase confirmation requirement, the refusal reasons, and that it never submits partial applications. It also clarifies that resumePath is never uploaded anywhere except LinkedIn. While it doesn't detail every failure mode, it covers essential behavioral traits beyond the 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 comprehensive yet well-structured. It front-loads the core action, then details each parameter, then explains the confirmation flow and failure modes. Every sentence adds value, and it's written in a logical order. It's long but justified given the complexity.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, nested objects, validation logic) and lack of output schema, the description provides complete guidance: parameter formats, confirmation flow, refusal cases, failure handling, and quota impact. No critical information missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does: jobId formats, resumePath optionality and accepted file types, answers matching semantics (case-insensitive, substring), confirm flag behavior, and previewToken usage. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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's purpose: submitting a LinkedIn Easy Apply application. It specifies the verb (submits), resource (LinkedIn Easy Apply application), and key details like jobId formats and confirmation requirement. It distinguishes itself from siblings like linkedin_search_jobs by focusing on the application action.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use: for Easy Apply postings, and when NOT to use: external applications and non-Easy Apply postings are refused. It also clarifies the confirm flag flow (preview vs submit). Mentions alternatives implicitly (handling external URL manually). Provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus others.

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