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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'submit a Builder task' is consistent with that write profile. It adds little beyond the annotations: no mention of async task queuing, required credentials, or rate limits for a tool that triggers external scraping.

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 trigger phrase list is front-loaded and functional, but it is padded with near-synonymous Chinese/English variants, and the trailing sentence redundantly repeats the three spider_id values already present in the enum. Some trimming would improve it.

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 6-parameter task-submission tool with full schema coverage and a safety profile in annotations, most needs are met. However, it never tells the agent that this starts an asynchronous collection job whose progress is checked via siblings like scraper_task_status/scraper_task_result, which is a meaningful gap for a task 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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only re-lists the three spider_id enum values that appear in the schema, adding no new syntax or mode-selection guidance beyond what is already there. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb and resource: submitting a LinkedIn job listings collection Builder task, and enumerates the three supported spider modes. It distinguishes itself from linkedin_company_information by scope (job listings vs companies), though it does not differentiate from competing job-listing siblings such as glassdoor_joblistings or google_jobs.

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?

Trigger conditions are spelled out precisely ('when the user needs LinkedIn job listings ... combined with verbs like collect/scrape/crawl/fetch/extract'), which gives clear context for when to invoke. It offers no exclusions or named alternative tools (e.g. glassdoor_joblistings), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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