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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the search runs under the user's own account, but it is silent on two opaque parameters (save_search, save_custom_filter) that imply a persistent side effect, and says nothing about pagination or result limits.

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 tight sentences with the verb, resource and account scope front-loaded and the filter dimensions following. Nothing is repeated and no filler is present.

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 7-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and filter dimensions but leaves the two save-related parameters and pagination behavior unaddressed. It is adequate to attempt a call but incomplete for confident invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 29%, the description does add filter semantics beyond the schema by naming company, seniority, employment status and workplace type (none of which appear as explicit properties). However it never explains the untyped save_search/save_custom_filter arguments or date_posted, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search LinkedIn jobs') and scopes it to the user's own account, which distinguishes it from recruiter/Sales Navigator searches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling read tools like linkedin_list_job_postings or linkedin_get_job_posting, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use for job discovery by keywords, title, company, location, seniority, employment status or workplace type' gives a clear usage context. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a location ID from linkedin_get_search_parameters), and no pointer to alternatives.

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