Get Saved Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool returns job_ids intended for use with get_job_details, which clarifies the output's role. This goes beyond what annotations provide, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 consists of two short, purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the primary function, the second adds a chaining hint. No redundant wording or 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 a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and how its result can be used. The annotations and output schema fill the remaining details, so no significant gaps 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%, and the max_pages parameter is fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the load.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'job postings saved by the authenticated LinkedIn user', clearly defining the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_jobs and get_job_details by focusing on saved postings specifically.

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 by stating these are the user's saved jobs and explicitly mentions that returned job_ids can be passed to get_job_details. While it doesn't explicitly describe when not to use this tool, the connection to a sibling tool offers practical usage guidance.

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