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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, but the description goes further: publishing is public, the post cannot be deleted afterwards, the call waits for a result and returns result.postUrl, and content is never generated at send time. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to reason about an irreversible write.

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 the action and its scope, and every clause carries distinct information (dry-run gate, source of text, irreversibility, alternative tool). It is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is wasted.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contract (result.postUrl on success), the safety gate, the irreversibility, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: text must be caller-supplied verbatim because the system never generates content at send time, and confirmPost's false branch is framed as a preview. sessionId/sessionLabel guidance is only echoed from the schema.

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 and resource ('Publish ONE post ... to the sending account's own LinkedIn feed NOW'), including scope (own feed, single post, text + optional image). It explicitly distinguishes itself from li_schedule_post, so an agent can route without opening either 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 alternative and the selecting condition: 'Use li_schedule_post instead when a person chose a future time (it stays cancellable in li_scheduled_posts).' It also states the operational gate (confirmPost=true to publish, otherwise dry-run preview).

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