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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it scopes results to postings OWNED by the user's account, and the account_id parameter description adds important behavioral guidance about Nilyo never guessing when multiple accounts exist. This goes 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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the use case is stated, and the sibling differentiation is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, use case, and sibling differentiation. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return format or pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter, but the schema already documents the cursor and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the tool (resolving job_posting_id) and the account_id parameter description provides rich guidance about when to omit it, when to list accounts, and how to choose. The cursor parameter's 'never invent it' warning is also valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('LinkedIn job postings OWNED by the user's account'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool linkedin_search_jobs, which discovers jobs across LinkedIn. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from the closest alternative.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this to resolve job_posting_id for management/budget operations.' It also names the alternative (linkedin_search_jobs) and states the condition that selects it ('discovers jobs across LinkedIn'). This is clear routing guidance.

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