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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it states the 3-credit cost applies whether cached or not, that failed calls are refunded, and that certain return fields are intentionally null. It omits auth/pagination-exhaustion caveats for a 12-param search, but the cost/refund disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, null behavior, and cost in three tight sentences. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 12-param search with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields, flagging which are null, and disclosing cost/refund behavior. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 every parameter including sort, fresh, cursor, and enums is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the broad 'keyword and location, with LinkedIn's own filters' framing, which is consistent but not additive. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource (search LinkedIn job postings) plus scope (by keyword and location, with LinkedIn's own filters). It implicitly differentiates from get_linkedin_job by naming it for the detail-only fields, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly directs the agent to linkedin/job when employment_type, seniority_level, salary or description are needed, which is the primary usage decision for this family. It does not spell out when-not to use it (e.g. vs. other search endpoints) or prerequisites, but the context is unambiguous.

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