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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context beyond annotations by clarifying that this tool only retrieves job postings owned by the user's account and that the ID must be sourced from the list endpoint. This adds behavioral understanding of scope and ID provenance, valuable for correct invocation.

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 description is concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose before the critical constraint. Every word adds value, with no extraneous content. The structure clearly separates 'what it does' from 'how to get the ID,' making it easy for an agent to parse.

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-only get operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it retrieves, the required ID source, and exclusions. It doesn't detail return format or error handling, but given the simplicity and the annotations covering safety, the definition is complete enough for correct use.

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%, meaning both parameters already have detailed descriptions. The tool description largely repeats the schema's guidance on job_posting_id (e.g., must be from linkedin_list_job_postings, never title/company). Since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly, the description adds minimal new semantic value beyond reinforcement, matching the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('one job posting'), and the scope ('owned by the user's LinkedIn account'). It explicitly distinguishes from discovery tools by specifying that the ID must come from linkedin_list_job_postings, not unrelated results. This differentiates it from siblings like linkedin_search_jobs and linkedin_list_job_postings.

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 instructions on the correct ID source: it MUST come from linkedin_list_job_postings, not a title/company or unrelated discovery. It also warns 'Never pass: job title, company ID.' This clearly guides when to use this tool versus alternatives and what to avoid, leaving no ambiguity.

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