Sync posted jobs from LinkedIn

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it runs 'in the background paced like a person (roughly 1–3 minutes)' and that wait=true blocks. It also notes the side effect of storing locally. This is valuable context that isn't in the annotations. It doesn't contradict any annotation.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and location, the second explains behavior and options. It front-loads the primary purpose and keeps the alternative usage compact. Perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how it behaves (background, paced), how to get results (wait=true or use jobs_list), and the specific path. The annotations already cover open-world and idempotency. No critical information is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds interpretative value: it explains the effect of wait=true ('blocks up to 2 minutes and returns the jobs found') and mentions 'open and optionally closed' which maps to includeClosed. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions, so it earns above the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Queue a crawl'), the resource ('your posted jobs'), and the storage effect ('store them locally'). It also mentions the specific path '/my-items/posted-jobs/' and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'jobs_list' by saying 'Afterwards use jobs_list'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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?

It explicitly explains the two modes of use: background crawl (non-blocking) and with wait=true (blocks up to 2 minutes and returns jobs). It also directs the agent to the next appropriate tool (jobs_list) after the sync. This gives clear when-to-use and follow-up guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficient.

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