search_linkedin_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'guest-accessible' and 'bounded', hinting at authentication requirements and limits, but these are vague and unquantified. It doesn't reveal how pagination works, whether filters mutate the search, or any rate-limiting considerations. The description adds some but insufficient transparency.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it lacks any structure or elaboration, making it minimally viable at best. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (e.g., key filters or limitations), so it doesn't earn its place as a standalone guide.

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 11 parameters and a search function, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain the search behavior, available filters (job_type, experience_level, etc.), pagination controls, or the meaning of 'bounded'. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to clarify scope and usage context, which it mostly fails to do.

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?

The schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage; the description provides no explanation of any parameter. While the schema includes enums and defaults, it lacks human-readable semantics (e.g., what 'distance' means in this context, how 'exclude_job_ids' is used). The description completely fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter intent or relationships.

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 specifies the action ('Search') and resource ('public LinkedIn job data'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'find_matching_linkedin_jobs', which likely performs a similar search function. The qualifiers 'bounded guest-accessible' add some context but don't clarify the unique scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other sibling tools would be preferred. This is a clear gap given the existence of overlapping tools like 'find_matching_linkedin_jobs'.

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