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

Annotations already disclose read-only and open-world hints, covering safety. The description adds behavioural context by stating the return type ('Returns a list') and pagination handling ('use cursor when paginated'). It does not contradict the annotations and adds value beyond the safety profile, though it could mention that only public posts are returned, but this is implied by openWorldHint.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action and differentiation are front-loaded, and the pagination hint is appended efficiently. Every word 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?

The description covers the essential differentiators and return-type hint. It lacks an explicit statement about the scope of posts (public only) or that date filtering is only for articles, but these are either implied by openWorldHint or detailed in the schema. For a simple list tool with no output schema, it is sufficiently complete, though a mention of output structure would push it higher.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, all parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by URL' which aligns with the url parameter but doesn't add new meaning to any parameter. It relies on the schema for parameter understanding, which is acceptable, hence the baseline score of 3.

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's function: 'List posts from one specific LinkedIn person profile by URL' – a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly differentiates it from the sibling tool by stating 'not a keyword search — use linkedin.posts.search.list to search across public posts', making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: it tells the agent when not to use this tool (for keyword searches) and names the exact alternative tool ('use linkedin.posts.search.list'). It also provides a functional hint ('use cursor when paginated'), leaving no ambiguity about invocation context.

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