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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of behavioral context not present in annotations: the 30-point cost per call, which lets the agent weigh invocation. It says nothing about auth needs, behavior on invalid/expired/private postings, or rate limits, so it earns a moderate rather than high score.

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 English field list is front-loaded and information-dense, with the cost note correctly trailing. The Korean sentence is a full restatement rather than a complement, which is redundancy for a bilingual audience but consumes space without adding new semantic 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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it by enumerating the nine returned fields, and it discloses the call cost — both things an agent needs. It lacks only error/edge-case behavior for a single-parameter scrape tool, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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% and the single url parameter is documented in the schema with a concrete example format (https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/{번호}). The description adds no syntax, canonicalization, or accepted-URL-variant guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('LinkedIn job posting by URL') and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, company, location, employment type, seniority, industries, description, posted date, applicants), which makes the resource unmistakable against siblings like linkedin_company and linkedin_profile. It does not explicitly name those siblings to draw the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent must infer from the name and the URL parameter alone that this is the tool for a single job posting rather than a company or profile lookup. The only supplementary note is the per-call cost, which is pricing rather than selection guidance.

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