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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds value beyond them: the required plan permission and the fact that the response includes engagement metrics and per-status counts. It does not discuss result-set size or ordering, which is the only remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then scope exclusions, then the pre-use guidance. Every sentence carries information, though the duplication between 'drafted, scheduled or published' and 'per-status counts' is mildly redundant.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, what comes back, which account scope applies, permission requirements, and how it relates to the write tool downstream.

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%, with both `linkedAccountId` and `status` documented and an enum for status values, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only implicitly signals status filtering via 'per-status counts' and adds no enum semantics (e.g. what REQUIRE_APPROVAL means for the caller).

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 resource (LinkedIn posts) and enumerates the states it covers — drafted, scheduled, published — plus what it returns (engagement numbers, per-status counts). It explicitly separates itself from `campaign_list` and `analytics_campaign`, so an agent can distinguish it from the outreach tools without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit pre-condition for use: read this before `post_upsert` to avoid creating a near-duplicate. It also names the sibling tools it replaces for the campaign-outreach use case and states the 'Publish' permission prerequisite, leaving little to inference.

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