get_profile_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Returns cleaned data in TOON format' which adds some context about output formatting, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or what 'cleaned data' entails. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output format. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.

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 8 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate context for a read operation. It specifies the resource (LinkedIn profile posts) and output format (TOON), which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, for a tool with multiple filtering options (time limits, pagination, max items) and data saving capability, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies the tool retrieves posts from profiles, which aligns with the parameter names, but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 action ('Get posts') and resource ('from a LinkedIn profile'), with specific output format ('cleaned data in TOON format'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_profile (which likely gets profile info rather than posts) and get_post (which gets a specific post). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_profile_comments or get_profile_reactions, which are related but distinct operations.

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. With siblings like get_post (for single posts), get_profile_comments (for comments), and search_posts (for broader searches), the description offers no context on when this profile-specific post retrieval is preferred. The only implied usage is for getting posts from profiles rather than companies or groups.

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