harvest_get_profile_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It only states the identifier requirement and the basic action, omitting details like read-only nature, pagination behavior, error handling, or that it returns a list of posts. This is a thin disclosure for a tool with 7 parameters.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes the key prerequisite. There is no redundant or irrelevant text, every word earns its place.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, pagination, or how the filtering parameters relate to the result. The schema covers parameter meanings but the agent lacks high-level context about the tool's behavior, making the description insufficient for a complex 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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds a cross-parameter constraint (at least one of profile, profileId, profilePublicIdentifier is required), which is not evident from the schema where all params are optional. This adds meaning about parameter relationships.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('LinkedIn profile posts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_company_posts or get_post. It also notes the required identifier, adding specificity. The name itself is descriptive, but the description reinforces the tool's scope.

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 a prerequisite (requires at least one of three identifiers) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_posts or get_profile_comments. It does not mention exclusion cases or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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