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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior — caching of Company Pages and concrete rate limits (at most once a minute, 10 times a day) — which directly affects how an agent should call it. It doesn't say what happens if the limit is exceeded or what permissions/connection state is required, so it isn't exhaustive.

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 tight sentences: what it returns first, then the follow-up action, then the caching caveat with limits. No filler and nothing buried.

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 the return-value burden and does so — names the author types plus the current choice — and explains the cache/refresh behavior and the handoff to select_linkedin_author. Enough for an agent to call it and act on the result.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: refresh triggers a live LinkedIn fetch with hard throttling, and organization ids are the handoff value for select_linkedin_author. This makes the refresh trade-off legible rather than just a boolean toggle.

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 ('Lists who the workspace's LinkedIn posts can go out as') and enumerates the two things returned: the connecting person and the Company Pages they manage, plus the current selection. An agent can distinguish this from list_organizations or list_platform_connections without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the next step: 'Pass an organization id to select_linkedin_author to post as that Page,' and explains when to use refresh: true versus the cache. It doesn't cover when to prefer this over other listing tools (e.g. list_organizations), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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