linkedin_job_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that the default is a dry-run that walks the whole form and returns missing questions, that a real submission requires two flags, and that answers are persisted for future use. These are real side-effects and safety behaviors beyond what any structured field provides.

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?

Front-loads the default safe behavior, then the condition to override, then the persistence side-effect, in a compact set of sentences with no filler.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the safety default, the send condition, and answer persistence well. Minor gaps remain for maxSteps and resumePath behavior, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 75% but the description adds the crucial semantics: dryRun defaults to true and confirm is mandatory for a real send, plus that answers persist. It doesn't document maxSteps, resumePath, or rememberAnswers, so those rely on the schema alone, but the critical interaction between parameters is explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Postula a una oferta con Solicitud sencilla' = apply to an offer via Easy Apply), which clearly distinguishes it from linkedin_job_save (saving) or linkedin_job_detail (reading). An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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 states the default is a simulation that fills the form and stops before submitting, and gives the exact condition needed to actually send (dryRun=false AND confirm=true). It also notes new answers are reused in later applications, covering the when-to-use-and-what-to-expect.

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