search_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 behavioral burden. The phrase 'guest seeMoreJobPostings endpoint' weakly implies an unauthenticated, read-only lookup, but the description says nothing about rate limits, pagination behavior, default location scoping ('Israel'), or what happens when keywords are empty and cv_path drives the query.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and endpoint are stated immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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?

With 11 parameters and an output schema present, the schema carries most of the load, but for a default-scoped search tool with no annotations and many competing siblings, the description should at minimum explain scope, defaults, and how it differs from the other job-listing tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all 11 parameters, including enum-like codes for f_E, f_WT, f_TPR and sort_by. The description adds nothing beyond the schema and does not explain how overlapping filters (work_mode vs f_WT, keywords vs cv_path) interact.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search LinkedIn jobs') and even the underlying endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as job_search, job_fetch, or get_job_matches, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many search-adjacent siblings (job_search, job_fetch, filter_jobs_by_preferences, get_job_matches). No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, no routing guidance at all.

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