get_job_skills

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 adds some context: the 'WARNING: Uses unofficial API' indicates potential risks like rate limits, instability, or authentication needs not covered elsewhere. However, it doesn't detail response format, error handling, or other behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's read-only or has side effects), leaving gaps in 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter details and a warning. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains the parameter, the third describes the return, and the fourth provides a critical warning. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating the warning more seamlessly).

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and a key behavioral warning. However, with no annotations and reliance on an unofficial API, it could benefit from more guidance on usage scenarios or error cases to fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'job_id,' but the description specifies it as 'LinkedIn job ID,' clarifying the expected format and source. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it could be more detailed (e.g., explaining how to obtain this ID).

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's purpose: 'Get skills required for a job posting.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('skills'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_job' (which likely gets job details) and 'get_profile_skills' (which gets skills from a profile). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_jobs' or other job-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the tool returns 'required and preferred skills for the job' and includes a 'WARNING: Uses unofficial API,' which hints at potential reliability or policy issues. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_job' (for general job info) or 'search_jobs' (for finding jobs), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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