linkedin_jobs_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one useful behavioral trait: results flag Easy Apply eligibility and already-applied status. But it says nothing about auth/session requirements, pagination, rate limits, or how the enrichment is surfaced.

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 tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the result-enrichment note second. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for a 10-parameter tool.

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 10-parameter search with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain parameter meaning, return shape, or pagination. The mention of Easy Apply / applied flags is the only return detail provided.

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% across 10 parameters, and the description only alludes vaguely to 'los filtros de LinkedIn' without naming or explaining any of them. Only 'Solicitud sencilla' loosely maps to easyApplyOnly, leaving limit, start, sortBy, jobType, location, workplace, datePosted and experienceLevel entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb+resource ('Busca ofertas de empleo') and scopes it to LinkedIn filters, which distinguishes it from siblings like linkedin_job_detail or linkedin_my_jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead for adjacent tasks, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as linkedin_job_detail (for a single posting) or linkedin_my_jobs. The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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