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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: what it searches, what it returns (title, company, location, etc.), and available filters (recency, job type, company, location). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or rate limits, but search operation is inherently read-only and the description transparently lists outputs and filter capabilities.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return values, filters, and use case. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and filters, satisfying most informational needs. It does not mention pagination or sort options, but these are documented in the schema. The use-case signal adds valuable context, making it fairly complete for its complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by mapping filters to parameter categories (recency, job type, company, location), but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It reinforces which parameters matter but provides no extra syntax or format details.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches LinkedIn job listings by keyword, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_linkedin_companies and linkedin_job_details by explicitly focusing on jobs and listing the returned fields and filters, making its scope unmistakable.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'useful as a hiring/expansion/funding signal.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context and return-field list make the intended use case clear. No exclusions are provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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