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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds an applicant_id selection caution but does not disclose details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, with the action front-loaded and a high-value warning second. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple read tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers the invocation essentials. The only notable gap is the absence of return format details (e.g., URL vs binary vs base64), which matters slightly more because there is no output schema.

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%, and the schema already describes applicant_id as an exact ID from the corresponding listing, job_id acquisition rules, and account_id selection. The description restates the applicant_id caution but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states an exact action ('Download/retrieve'), a specific resource ('the resume of one applicant to a LinkedIn Classic job'), and clear singular scope ('one applicant'). This distinguishes it from listing tools and from the Recruiter resume variant visible in sibling tool names.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: never infer applicant_id from name, list applicants first, and reuse exact applicant.id. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for Recruiter contexts, but the Classic scope and the 'never infer' rule provide clear context.

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