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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavior beyond annotations by noting that the search is site-wide, returns a list, and uses a cursor for pagination. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but these are not critical for a read-only search 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?

Two sentences with each clause earning its place: the first defines scope and differentiates from siblings, the second describes return type and pagination. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it searches, that it returns a list, and how to paginate. The explicit alternatives prevent misuse.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, mainly framing query as a keyword and cursor as pagination usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation load.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('public LinkedIn posts'), and a clear site-wide scope that distinguishes it from profile- or company-scoped tools. It also names the exact alternatives, so an agent can differentiate without opening the schema.

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 when to use this tool vs alternatives ('not scoped to one profile or company — use linkedin.profiles.posts.list or linkedin.company.posts.list for that'). It also provides operational guidance on pagination ('use cursor when paginated'), making the conditions for use unmistakable.

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