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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description does not contradict these and adds minimal behavioral context—just that it fetches a post. It does not add details about edge cases, errors, or rate limits, but with annotations carrying the load, the bar is lower. The description provides no additional behavioral value beyond the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff: the first states the action and identifier type, the second gives the usage context. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is a model of conciseness.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, when to use it, and the schema documents parameters thoroughly. There is no output schema, but the phrase 'full post context' hints at the return. The tool is simple enough that no further guidance is essential, though it could mention error behavior, which is not required.

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%: both post_id and account_id have detailed descriptions, including guidance on obtaining post_id from search/list tools and when to provide account_id. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get a LinkedIn post by Nilyo/Unipile post_id.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like linkedin_search_posts or linkedin_list_user_posts by specifying the retrieval method (by post_id) and the condition of already having the ID. This is not a tautology and provides a clear, singular purpose.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use when you already know a post_id and need full post context.' This implies when not to use it (e.g., when you need to search or list posts) and distinguishes it from alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria beyond the presence of an ID, so it falls short of a 5.

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