get_linkedin_job_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does usefully disclose the return payload (criteria fields, posted time, applicant count as shown publicly). It says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid or expired job id, whether the applicant count can be absent, scoping to public page data, or any auth/rate constraints.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the enumerated return fields are the most valuable part. The nested parenthetical and the trailing 'shown on the public job page' make it slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 simple one-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back, which is the main thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior for unresolvable job identifiers, a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is a single required 'job' parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting that it accepts a job id or a job URL. The description adds no extra meaning such as URL formats accepted or whether a slug-only URL works, so baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the resource precisely: one job's full description, criteria (seniority, employment type, industries), posted time, and applicant count. The word 'one' plus 'full description' implicitly contrasts with search_linkedin_jobs, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the drill-down call after search_linkedin_jobs returns job ids, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or why to prefer it over check_ghost_job. No prerequisites or alternate paths are given.

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