linkedin_post_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure it. It mentions required parameters (text commentary and URL) and optional ones (title, description, visibility), but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens exactly when the post is published. This leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter details adequately. It lacks explanation of errors, rate limits, or prerequisite authentication, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining the meaning of each parameter (text commentary, URL), marking required vs optional, and specifying allowed values for visibility (PUBLIC or CONNECTIONS). It adds context beyond the field names but could include constraints like character limits.

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 verb 'Publish' and the resource 'LinkedIn post with a link/article preview card'. It distinguishes from siblings like linkedin_post_text by specifying the use case for sharing URLs with auto-generated previews.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use when the user wants to share a URL with an auto-generated preview' and 'Best for sharing blog posts, news articles, or web pages'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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