Search LinkedIn jobs

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

Annotations already mark read-only and idempotent, but description adds substantial behavior: lazy-loading with randomized scroll pauses, scoring and skipping of cards without job IDs (counted in `skipped`), no confirm or daily quota, and the filter precedence rule (filters wins if both present). This exceeds annotation coverage and is genuinely useful.

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?

Although lengthy, every sentence adds value: purpose, parameters, behavior, and downstream workflow. Front-loads the core action and returns, then details. No filler; structure is logical.

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 complex tool with 8 params, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers return fields, skipped count, lazy-loading performance, and the apply workflow. It also clarifies default/max count and filter precedence. No critical missing information 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description compensates by explaining each major parameter: required keywords, free-text location examples, all four facets with exact enum values (datePosted and experienceLevel), count default/max, and the nested-versus-top-level filter hierarchy. This is more than the schema provides.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Searches LinkedIn job postings' and explicitly lists returned fields (job id, title, company, location, Easy Apply support, URL). Distinguishes from siblings because no other sibling handles job search; it's the obvious entry point for discovery.

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?

Provides clear context: explains how to use filters and count, and explicitly routes results to linkedin_apply_to_job for Easy Apply postings. Does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., when not to use) but the workflow guidance is strong. Lacks a direct 'use instead of X' but that's not needed given sibling separation.

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