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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false from annotations, the safety profile is already covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals an external dependency ('Search Binging geo locations'), specifies how the output should be wired into create_post, and discloses an account/follower eligibility requirement. This is more than the minimum needed for a read-only 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second shows integration, the third states a prerequisite. No redundant or filler content, and the essential purpose is front-loaded in the opening words.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should convey what the tool returns, and it does by mentioning the 'returned urn + displayText.' It also covers the use case and eligibility requirements. It stops short of describing pagination, error cases, or the exact return shape, but for a read-only search utility that feeds create_post, the description is largely complete.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies that 'query' is a location search term through 'Search Bing geo locations' and hints that accountId is related to the required 'Company Page account.' However, it does not explicitly map accountId to the Company Page account or explain the expected query format beyond its schema constraints. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 and resource: 'Search Bing geo locations.' It grounds the purpose in a concrete use case, 'for LinkedIn Company Page organic targeting,' and distinguishes this tool from its siblings (linkedin_search_organizations, linkedin_search_people_mentions) by focusing on geo locations rather than organizations or people mentions.

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?

The description states when to use the tool by explaining how the output is consumed: 'Pass returned urn + displayText into linkedinTargets[].post.geoLocations on create_post.' It also gives a prerequisite and constraint: 'Requires a Comppany Page account; LinkedIn needs more than 300 matching Page followers.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the intended workflow is clear from context.

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