socials_linkedin_posts_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool navigates to search results rather than returning data directly, which is important. However, it does not disclose whether it modifies any state (e.g., typing into a search box, clicking filters) or mention authentication or rate limits. This is adequate 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a concise workflow. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, the destination (filtered search results), and the follow-up steps. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., empty results) but is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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% and the schema already provides a description with examples for the query parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'Search for posts.' Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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: 'Search for posts on LinkedIn.' It specifies a distinct resource (posts) and distinguishes from sibling tools like socials_linkedin_people_search. The added detail about navigating to filtered search results further clarifies the action.

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 clear next-step guidance: 'After success, use socials_get_feed to read visible posts, then socials_linkedin_engage or socials_quick_reply to interact.' This gives a usage workflow but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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