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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, yet the description adds real context beyond them: the preview is approximate, the link embeds the post text so it is shareable/leaky, and opening the link publishes nothing. That privacy and fidelity nuance is exactly the kind of thing an agent can't get from structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable, then escalation-relevant details (author fields, no side effects, shareability). Each sentence carries a distinct point, though the sharing caveat and the no-op caveat could be tightened into one.

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 properly explains what comes back (a link) and what it shows. The remaining minor gap is that it doesn't say whether the link is short-lived or what happens if the post text is too long for a URL.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that author_name and author_headline are optional 'when you know them', adding little beyond the schema's own descriptions and max lengths.

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?

States a specific verb and deliverable (return a link) for a specific resource (preview of a LinkedIn post in mobile/desktop feed, including the 'see more' cutoff). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_linkedin_post or format_linkedin_post, so a reader must infer the difference from the word 'preview'.

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 is only implied by the framing 'approximate preview' and the advice to pass author fields when known. It never says when to use this instead of check_linkedin_post or format_linkedin_post, and gives no preconditions or exclusions.

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