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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the "Read-only... changes nothing" sentence mostly restates them. The genuinely additive piece is the billing trait – 1 credit per result with a minimum of 1 per request – which is cost behavior no annotation conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then safety, then cost – no filler or hedging. Each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information an agent needs before calling.

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 some burden for describing what comes back, and it only says "returns public data" without indicating the post fields or the presence of nextCursor. The credit and paging mechanics are covered by the schema and billing sentence, but the return payload remains underspecified for a list 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 all three parameters are already documented, including the example publicId format and the cursor chaining instruction. The description adds no further meaning about parameter interactions (e.g., cost scaling with count) beyond what the schema and billing sentence imply.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List posts published by a LinkedIn profile"), which an agent can immediately separate from linkedin_get_posts_from_company or linkedin_search_posts by the "profile" scope. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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: the agent can infer this is for pulling a known profile's post history, and the cost sentence hints at deliberate scoping. There is no explicit when-not clause, no mention of switching to linkedin_get_post_detail for a single post, and no guidance on choosing count or paging depth.

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