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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing per-platform search horizons (X = 7 days, Bluesky = all, Mastodon = instance index, Reddit = session-scoped). That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express. It still omits ordering, result shape, and any rate-limit/pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a dense per-platform qualifier. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

The platform-coverage sentence is strong, but with no output schema the description should say what comes back (posts? IDs? counts?), in what order, and whether results are paginated. Query syntax is also left entirely unspecified, which is the main gap for a search 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?

Description contributes no meaning for any of the five parameters. With schema coverage at 60%, 'query' and 'limit' carry no description at all, and the description misses the chance to explain query syntax (operators, platform differences) or the limit cap — the highest-value parameter context for a search tool.

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+resource ('search the network's posts') and scopes it to account-level, non-LinkedIn searching, which distinguishes it from a generic list/get. It does not explicitly name siblings like posts_recent or posts_list, so the boundary is inferred 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?

The description implies when this is appropriate (full-text search over an account's network sessions) but never names an alternative or an exclusion rule relative to posts_list, posts_recent, or posts_lookup. The per-platform retention notes help set expectations but are behavioral facts, not usage routing.

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