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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: pagination limits (20/page, ~600 max), what data classes are returned, and billing at $0.006 per request.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is retrieved, followed by return contents, pagination caps, alternative routing, and cost. No filler.

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 only three parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: input form, return payload contents, pagination ceiling, alternative tool for keyword filtering, and cost. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, page (1-30), and get_sentiment. The description restates the URL-or-slug input and page ceiling but adds no new parameter semantics and never mentions get_sentiment or the sentiment surcharge. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Get), resource (recent posts a LinkedIn person authored), and an input mode (profile URL or public slug). It is clearly distinguishable from linkedin_company_posts and linkedin_post_details, since it scopes to a person's authored posts.

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?

Explicitly routes keyword filtering to a sibling: "Use search_linkedin with author to filter a person's posts by keyword." That is strong alternative guidance, though it does not state when-not to use this tool (e.g. versus linkedin_post_details for a single post).

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