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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about Company Pages and the mention-construction workflow, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, or any other edge-case behavior. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.

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 concise, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and the integration detail in the second. No wasted words, though the second sentence is dense and could be restructured for greater clarity. Overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how accountId and query drive the search. It only hints at output fields via type/urn/displayText and omits response shape, pagination, and accountId semantics. The create_post integration note helps but leaves significant gaps for a read-only search tool.

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 provides only types and constraints for accountId and query, with no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what accountId or query mean, and instead introduces type, urn, and displayText, which are not input parameters. This leaves the actual input semantics unclear and could confuse an agent.

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 concrete action ('Search Page followers') and a clear scope ('LinkedIn @mentions, Company Pages only'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like linkedin_search_geo_locations and linkedin_search_organizations. However, the second sentence is phrased as integration instructions for create_post rather than a plain restatement of purpose, leaving slight ambiguity about what exactly the search returns.

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 gives explicit context: Company Pages only, and how to pass type, urn, and displayText into captionMentions or firstCommentMentions when creating a post. It provides clear guidance for using the tool in the create_post workflow, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it to sibling search tools.

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