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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and non-destructive behaviour, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: results are capped at 50, only public listings are returned, recruiter names are never included, and billing is refunded for unfulfilled paid jobs. The cap and the public/recruiter caveats are behaviour an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return fields and constraints in one dense paragraph with no filler sentences. The billing/refund sentence is slightly tangential to tool selection but is short and self-contained.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it by naming the JSON fields (title, company, location, date, type, seniority, salary, URL, description). Pagination behaviour beyond the 50-item cap and error/empty-result behaviour are unstated, which is the only real gap for a 4-parameter read tool.

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 the schema already documents limit clamping, the posted enum values and location format. The description only restates these at a high level (up to 50, filter by recency, optional location) without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 and resource (LinkedIn jobs search) plus the exact retrieval scope: up to 50 public listings from a title/keyword plus optional location. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from indeed-jobs (different source) and from the plain 'linkedin' profile tool without opening the 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?

Clear context for when to reach for it: pass a job title or keywords, optional location, and optionally narrow by recency. It does not name alternatives (e.g. indeed-jobs) or say when this source is preferable, so the routing guidance stops short of explicit alternatives.

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