harvest_search_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without revealing pagination behavior, return format, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The presence of a paginationToken parameter and multiple filtering options implies complexity that is not explained, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and main filter types. Every word contributes to clarity, with no filler or redundant information. It is highly efficient and appropriately sized for a search tool.

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 complex search tool with 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. A one-sentence description is insufficient to convey overall behavior such as pagination handling, sorting, or the combination of filters. The schema covers parameters individually, but the description does not provide the higher-level context needed to fully understand the tool's capabilities and usage patterns.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the description need not redefine parameters. It does add marginal value by grouping filters into human-readable categories (keywords, author, company, group, content type, date range), which helps an agent quickly grasp the primary filtering dimensions. However, it does not add meaning beyond the already detailed schema 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 'Search LinkedIn posts' with a specific verb and resource, listing key filter dimensions (keywords, author, company, group, content type, date range). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like harvest_search_profiles or harvest_search_companies, which target different resources.

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 implies usage when searching for LinkedIn posts, and the listed filters provide context for common use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives such as harvest_get_profile_posts for profile-specific post retrieval. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so it falls short of the higher bar.

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