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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact: a cost of 1 credit per request. It also confirms the response is limited to public data, which is useful context. It says nothing about failure modes for invalid or private URLs.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the safety profile and the cost. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and billing cost, which is close to sufficient. With no output schema, a brief note on what fields the posting payload contains would close the remaining gap.

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 schema itself spells out accepted formats (full URL, numeric id, search link with currentJobId). The description adds no parameter detail beyond "by URL", 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?

"Fetch a LinkedIn job posting by URL" gives a specific verb and resource and the "by URL" scope implicitly separates it from linkedin_search_jobs, which discovers jobs rather than retrieving a known one. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the tool for a job whose URL/id is already known, and that linkedin_search_jobs is the discovery path. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is written out.

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