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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about applicant_id being scoped to the selected project context, which goes beyond the structured annotations. However, it does not describe response contents or account/auth behavior, so the added behavioral insight is moderate.

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 no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second concentrates the essential workflow constraint. Every word 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?

The required navigation chain is fully specified, the schema covers parameter semantics thoroughly, and the scoping constraint is stated. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not describe return values, but for a simple getter this is a minor omission.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including exact ID requirements and account_id disambiguation. The description reinforces the project/applicant ID relationship but adds little new per-parameter meaning, so 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 and resource: 'Get one Recruiter applicant.' The word 'one' distinguishes it from listing tools, 'Recruiter' distinguishes it from Classic LinkedIn tools, and 'applicant' distinguishes it from resume-specific fetches among the siblings.

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 an explicit required chain: list/select Hiring Project -> project.id -> list applicants -> applicant.id. This tells an agent exactly when in the workflow the tool is valid. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow guidance is clear and actionable.

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