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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior linkedin. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it restricts to Classic job postings owned by the connected accountaine, and requires a prior resolution step. This helps the agent avoid applying it to non-Classic or unowned jobs.

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 two short sentences with the core purpose first and the prerequisite second. Every word earns its place; no filler, no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent: it states what the tool returns (budget/pricing info), the prerequisite, and the ownership scope. The absence of return-format details is not a gap given the simple nature of the data retrieved.

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%, so the input schema fully documents both job_id (exact ID, not title/URL) and account_id (optional, multi-account handling). The description repeats the resolution prerequisite already present in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('budget/pricing information for a LinkedIn Classic job posting'), and a scope condition ('owned by the connected account'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like linkedin_get_job_posting, which fetches job details rather than budget data.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Resolve job_id with linkedin_list_job_postings first') and the ownership constraint, which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the specificity of 'budget/pricing' and 'Classic' makes the intended use unambiguous.

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