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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious data-provenance constraint about applicant_id, but does not disclose output format or connection prerequisites beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core action comes first, and the critical caveat immediately follows. It avoids restating the schema and earns every word.

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 read-only annotations, fully documented parameters, and the crucial applicant_id provenance rule, the tool is callable without further inference. A minor gap is not naming the Recruiter resume sibling for non-Classic jobs, but the description is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by warning against inferring applicant_id from name and reinforcing the required workflow: list applicants first, then reuse the exact applicant.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?

States the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Download/retrieve the resume of one applicant to a LinkedIn Classic job.' The 'Classic' qualifier and 'resume' clearly separate it from siblings like linkedin_classic_get_job_applicant and linkedin_recruiter_get_applicant_resume.

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?

Gives explicit call-order guidance: 'Never infer applicant_id from name; list applicants first and reuse exact applicant.id.' It also scopes the tool to LinkedIn Classic jobs, implying Recruiter siblings cover other contexts, though it does not explicitly name them.

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