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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds that it searches using the user's own account, implying authorization context, and that it returns post IDs needed by downstream tools. It doesn't disclose potential rate limits or result ordering, but given the annotation coverage, the added value is moderate.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and use case. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second gives usage context, and the third highlights output importance. No wasted words, though it could have been slightly more explicit about parameter formats.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description should provide more guidance on how to construct the search. It omits whether keywords are free-text or exact match, how date_posted is formatted, and what sort_by options exist. It also doesn't clarify if the returned post IDs are for all matching posts or a single best match. It covers the account_id ambiguity well but leaves other aspects under-specified.

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 only 25%, with only account_id having a description. The description does not explain the semantics of sort_by, keywords, or date_posted beyond what their names imply. However, the description does mention that it returns post IDs, which indirectly clarifies the output but not the parameters. Since the schema lacks descriptions for three parameters, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving the agent to infer. Baseline is 3 when schema coverage is low, but the description adds minimal parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'LinkedIn posts', and specifies that it uses the user's own account. It distinguishes itself from related tools like linkedin_get_post and linkedin_resolve_my_post by emphasizing it finds posts to support subsequent actions (reading comments, reactions, replying). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools (e.g., linkedin_search_people, linkedin_search_companies) beyond the resource type.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to find a post before reading comments, checking reactions, or replying. It also hints at the alternative: using comment/reaction tools after obtaining the post ID. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives for searching other content types, though the resource type (posts) implicitly does.

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