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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), it discloses the auth context (connected LinkedIn account, Classic, no Recruiter needed) and a hard rate limit (4 calls/minute) plus an anti-looping operational warning — exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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-loads the purpose, then usage, then operational caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information (payload, routing, rate limit) with no filler or repetition.

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?

Covers purpose, routing to the right sibling, auth model, rate constraints, and what is returned, which is sufficient for a read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single job_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its provenance from search_job_postings. The description adds no extra syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (LinkedIn job posting details), and enumerates the distinctive payload — hiring team contact, applicant/view counts. It contrasts cleanly with search_job_postings, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings 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?

Explicitly positions it as a follow-up to search_job_postings ('Use this after...') and names the goal (find the exact person to reach out to). It also adds an explicit when-not constraint: 'do not loop over every job result.'

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