linkedin_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'search' or 'extract' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, rate limits, error handling, or response size. This lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 is extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and then the parameter usage.

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 is adequate for a simple search/detail tool with only two parameters, but it lacks information about return format or whether both parameters can be used together. Without an output schema, the agent might not know what to expect.

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 100%, and the description reiterates the parameter purposes (keyword for search, job_id for detail). It does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 tool searches jobs or extracts details, with parameters for keyword or job_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like linkedin_search, linkedin_profile, etc., which focus on other aspects. However, it could be more specific about the output (e.g., list vs. single result).

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 basic usage context: use 'keyword' for search, 'job_id' for details. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like linkedin_search, which might offer broader search capabilities.

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