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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive intent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns the account owner's posts as candidates, requires the agent to choose the matching one and reuse result.id, and warns that post text, author user ID, or URL must not be passed. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, the ID format is clarified, concrete obtaining paths are listed, and negative constraints are stated. The parameter description for account_id is also concise and actionable.

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 resolver with no output schema, the description clearly explains what the tool returns (account owner's posts), how to use result.id, and what inputs are prohibited. The only meaningful gap is the absence of explicit pagination/offset behavior, which would help the agent know if it needs to iterate.

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?

The schema documents account_id thoroughly, including how to handle single vs. multiple connected accounts Satisfyingly. offset is only present as a name and integer type, with no description in the schema and none in the tool description. The description does add meaning around accepted post ID formats and how to obtain them, but it does not clarify how offset affects results, leaving a gap.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('user's description such as 'my latest post' into exact post IDs' ) and clearly distinguishes itself from post mutation tools by saying it runs 'before comments/reactions/edit/delete.' It also differentiates from the sibling resolve tools by explicitly mentioning post resolution and account owner posts.

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?

It gives clear context: use when a user refers to their post by a phrase and before operations like comments, reactions, edit, or delete. It also names concrete tools to obtain the ID from (linkedin_search_posts, linkedin_list_user_posts, instagram_list_user_posts) and what never to pass. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like linkedin_resolve_person or linkedin_resolve_company, but that is less relevant for this resource type.

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