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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses credit cost (7, or 3 with company_url), that caching does not change price, that failed calls are refunded, and that `fresh` is blocked on trial credits. It also discloses differing return shapes for person vs company (counts null and cheaper for companies). Missing only reversibility-style notes, which are largely irrelevant for a read tool.

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 purpose, then return fields, alternative routing, the exclusivity constraint, and pricing. Dense but each clause carries information; slightly heavy for a single paragraph but no clear padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description steps in to describe field-level returns for person and company calls, cost model, and the one-of parameter rule, which is what an agent needs. Pagination and freshness nuances live in the schema descriptions, so the combination is adequate.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics the schema does not: the mutual-exclusivity of url/company_url/query and the price differential tied to company_url. Format/syntax details for parameters remain delegated to 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 ('Fetch recent posts by one person or company, or ... every public post with those words'), covering the dual get/search nature. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_linkedin_post by explicitly routing there for per-post counts.

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 a hard selection rule ('Give exactly one of `url` or `company_url` or `query`') and names the alternative tool (linkedin/post) with the condition that selects it (wanting counts on a single post). It does not cover when to use fresh/posted_within, but context is otherwise clear.

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