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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the safety picture is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations by enumerating the returned fields and disclosing the $0.002 per-request billing, which an agent cannot derive from structured data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then the payload and cost. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields (title, company, location, salary, benefits, full description), and it adds cost and scope. For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'url' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the accepted URL format and the numeric-ID alternative. The description restates the URL-or-ID duality but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one LinkedIn job listing') and scopes it to a single record identified by URL or numeric ID, which cleanly separates it from search_linkedin_jobs. An agent can tell immediately this is the detail-fetch counterpart to the search tool.

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 single-record phrasing implies the tool is used once a job URL or ID is already known, but it never states when to reach for this versus search_linkedin_jobs or linkedin_company_details. Usage is inferable from the name and scope rather than spelled out.

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