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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful downstream context about the identifierUrn, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or asset requirements. The return value is likely already captured by the output schema, so limited extra credit is given.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The action is stated first, the output and downstream use come second, and the special parameter guidance is last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with an output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and three required parameters, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool creates, what to pass in, what to do with the result, and where to source the author URN. No critical operational detail 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?

The schema has 100% coverage, but the author_urn schema description is misleading ('Only messages from this author URN'). The tool description corrects this by explaining that author_urn is the connected account's urn:li:fsd_profile URN obtained from get_me. It also clarifies that media_urns are digitalmediaAsset URNs, adding real semantic value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a LinkedIn multi-photo object'), the input (a list of digitalmediaAsset URNs), and the output (an identifierUrn to pass to create_post). It also differentiates this from the sibling create_post tool by positioning its output as a prerequisite for create_post.

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 provides clear pipeline context: the returned identifierUrn is meant to be passed to create_post, and author_urn should come from get_me. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or naming alternative paths, so it misses the explicit exclusion part.

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