job

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only lists actions and filter parameters. It does not disclose that 'apply' likely submits an application or any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response behavior, leaving the agent without safety or impact context.

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 opens with a one-sentence purpose statement, then uses a clean argument list with inline defaults and allowed values, followed by a compact action-to-argument mapping. For a tool with 10 parameters and 4 actions, the length is necessary and every line adds useful information.

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 covers the action variants, all parameters, defaults, filters, and per-action restrictions, which is strong for a complex job tool. It omits the side-effect behavior of 'apply' and any mention of related tools, leaving minor but notable gaps given the lack of annotations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly: it explains every parameter's purpose, adds enum values for job_type and experience_level, gives count range '1-50 default 20', and provides date_posted options. The allowed_args_for_action mapping further clarifies which arguments are legal for each action, going far beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence 'Discover and manage LinkedIn job postings' clearly states the tool's resource and domain, and listing the four actions (search, details, recommended, apply) makes the intended scope concrete. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools or sharpen the vague verb 'manage,' so it falls short of perfect differentiation.

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 a detailed allowed_args_for_action mapping, which tells the agent exactly which parameters are valid for each action and notes that job_id is required for details and apply. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings like 'application' or 'company,' so the comparative usage dimension is missing.

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