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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call is metered as browsing activity, and the response spans all media including carousels rather than a truncated preview.

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 verb and resource, then the payload, then the cost note; no filler. The 'Counts as browsing' fragment is terse but purposeful rather than sloppy.

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, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden by listing what the post object contains. The remaining gap is on the input side: account_id semantics and behavior when no post matches are unaddressed.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It obliquely explains post_id ('by id or social_id') but never says which identifier form is expected or whether one field accepts both, and account_id — a required UUID — is never mentioned at all.

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 ('One LinkedIn or Instagram post') and enumerates the returned payload (text, counts, liked state, all media including carousels), which implicitly separates it from get_post_media. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

'Counts as browsing' gives useful quota/cost context for deciding whether to call it, and 'by id or social_id' hints at acceptable lookup keys. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_post_media or list_post_reactions guidance, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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