Get Content Ideas

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

The description indicates a read operation with no side effects but offers minimal behavioral context beyond listing returned content. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does not address permissions, rate limits, or response format.

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 sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get LinkedIn content strategy') and efficiently lists the included components. No extraneous text.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and two optional parameters with enums, the description covers the tool's purpose adequately. It names the return components and implies filtering by account and section, though it does not explicitly state defaults.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by listing the components that correspond to the section enum values (pillars, calendar, post_structure, content_bank). This supplements the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 retrieves LinkedIn content strategy and lists its components (pillars, calendar, post structure, content bank). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_linkedin_metrics or get_linkedin_profile by specifying a different resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_linkedin_metrics or get_ideas. There is no mention of context prerequisites or exclusions.

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