social_media_posting_get_linkedin_page_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that it is a read operation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what exactly is returned (e.g., whether both page and profile data are included). The description is consistent with annotations but fails to enrich the agent's understanding beyond them.

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 a single short sentence, 'Get Linkedin pages and profile', which is efficient and front-loaded. It is concise without being overly verbose. However, it is somewhat sparse, so while it earns its place, it could slightly elaborate without losing conciseness.

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?

This is a simple read tool with two parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the response will contain or what exactly is fetched. An agent cannot know if it returns both page and profile details, or if additional fields like account name or profile URL are included. Given the lack of output schema, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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%: both accountId and locationId are described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but according to the rubric, when schema coverage is high the baseline is 3. The description does not compensate for any undocumented aspects, but since all parameters are documented, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb 'Get' and resource 'Linkedin pages and profile', which is distinct from sibling tools like get_facebook_page_group or attach_linkedin_page_profile. It is unambiguous that this retrieves LinkedIn-related data, though the exact scope (pages vs profile vs both) is slightly vague, so it does not fully disambiguate from other LinkedIn getters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this should be preferred over other social media get tools. An agent cannot infer when this is the right choice without additional context.

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