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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: platform-specific outcomes like keyless availability, credentials_required, not_supported, and LinkedIn quarantine, plus the unified Post[] return shape and platform tagging.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by compact platform-specific notes and a sibling pointer. No wasted words; each 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the return shape (Post[] with platform tag) and error/edge states (credentials_required, not_supported, quarantine). It also points to the alternative tool. The only missing minor detail is pagination mechanics, but the schema's cursor parameter and descriptions suffice.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description enriches the platform parameter semantics by detailing which platforms are keyless, require credentials, don't support keyless, or are quarantined. This adds value beyond the enum list.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Search a single network for posts matching a query.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling search_all tool by explicitly naming it as the multi-network alternative, and the mention of 'single' network sets the boundary.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs search_all, and offers per-platform operational details (keyless support, credential requirements, not_supported, quarantine). This goes beyond generic advice, telling the agent exactly what to expect for each platform.

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