linkedin_my_jobs

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about authentication requirements, result limits, pagination, or what fields are returned, and it does not disclose whether the saved/applied lists behave differently.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the resource being listed is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter listing tool, though the parenthetical brand reference is decorative rather than informative.

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 simple read tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves gaps around login/session prerequisites and result shape that an agent would have to discover at call time.

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% and the single 'tab' parameter is only an enum, so the description must add meaning. It does translate the enum into natural language ('ofertas guardadas' = saved, 'solicitudes enviadas' = applied), but adds no default value, no behavior when omitted, and no other semantics.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Lista') with a specific resource ('tus ofertas guardadas o tus solicitudes enviadas') and anchors it to LinkedIn's 'Mis empleos' section. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly names how it differs from siblings like linkedin_jobs_search (open search) or linkedin_applications_log.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for reviewing jobs you already saved or applied to, not for discovering new ones. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of the closely related linkedin_jobs_search / linkedin_applications_log, and no stated prerequisite such as an active session.

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