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

The description claims 'use cursor when paginated', but the schema clearly states pagination is page-based. This contradictory instruction could mislead an agent into expecting cursor-based pagination. Beyond that, it adds minimal behavioral detail beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld), so it fails to add accurate value.

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?

The description is two succinct sentences, front-loading the core purpose and alternative, with no wasted words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers the main scenario and returns a list, but the pagination contradiction creates a gap. It also does not describe the output shape beyond 'list', which could be useful, but given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly 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 the baseline is 3. However, the description misrepresents pagination behavior (cursor vs. page-based), actively confusing the agent about how the 'page' parameter works. It adds no useful clarification and potentially harmful misinformation.

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 tool lists posts from one specific LinkedIn company page by URL, and explicitly contrasts it with keyword search (linkedin.posts.search.list). This gives a specific verb, resource, and distinguishes it from relevant siblings like search tools.

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 explicitly says this is not a keyword search and directs the user to the alternative tool, leaving no ambiguity about when to use it. It also notes that pagination is cursor-based, though this conflicts with the schema.

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