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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the project-scoping warning, but does not disclose pagination behavior, result shape, or account-selection nuances beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the critical prerequisite and the key exclusion. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 listing tool with rich schema documentation and safety annotations, the description covers the most important workflow trap (project_id vs job_id). It does not describe pagination or the return format, but the schema covers cursor behavior and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 high at 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by clarifying that project_id refers to a Recruiter Hiring Project and explicitly warning against using a Classic job_id, which is not stated in 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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('applicants from a LinkedIn Recruiter Hiring Project talent pool'), and makes the scope explicit ('project-scoped'). It also directly contrasts with Classic job_id, which clearly differentiates this tool from linkedin_classic_list_job_applicants.

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 actionable directives: resolve project_id first and never substitute a Classic job_id for project_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state broader when-to-use conditions, but the exclusion is specific and useful enough to guide selection.

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