search_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields but omits details like pagination, sorting, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It implies a read operation but does not confirm. This is minimally adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists return fields. No unnecessary words, front-loaded effectively.

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 covers the basic purpose and output structure but lacks details on result count, sorting, pagination, or the location_geo_id format. For a simple search tool with no output schema or annotations, it is adequate but not complete.

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 each parameter already has descriptions. The tool description only recaps 'by keywords (and optional location)', adding no extra semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'LinkedIn jobs', and the scope 'by keywords (and optional location)'. It also lists the return fields (title, location, posted time), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_details and search_people.

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 for when to use the tool: for keyword-based job search with optional location. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate from other search tools.

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