search_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the returned fields (job title, organization, location, payer, description preview) and includes an example call, giving the agent a clear picture of expected behavior. However, it does not mention any side effects, safety guarantees, or rate limits, though 'search' strongly implies read-only behavior.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by use-case context, a clear return-value list, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and the example is particularly helpful for agent comprehension without being verbose.

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?

The description is complete given the tool's complexity: all parameters are documented in the schema, return values are clearly explained, and an example is supplied. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of returned fields. Minor gaps like pagination behavior with 'start' are indirectly covered by the schema, so no major omissions exist.

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%, with all three parameters (keyword, count, start) described. The description adds a useful example showing keyword and count in action, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 'start' parameter or elaborate on param semantics. This meets the baseline for fully documented schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('LinkedIn sponsored job postings'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_ads' and 'search_paid_endorsements'. It also outlines concrete use cases (tracking competitor hiring patterns, team expansion, market positioning), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('track competitor hiring patterns, team expansion signals, and market positioning') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since sibling tools are listed separately, a brief note on how this differs from them would elevate this to a 5, but the current guidance is still solid.

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