search_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'returns cleaned data in TOON format,' which adds some behavioral context about output formatting. However, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or what 'cleaned data' entails specifically.

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 with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and output format. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with essential information. 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?

Given the complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose and output format. However, for a search tool with many filtering options and no output schema, it should ideally explain more about result structure, limitations, or typical use cases to be truly complete.

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 14 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain TOON format or how parameters interact). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 searches LinkedIn posts and returns cleaned data in TOON format, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('LinkedIn posts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_profiles' or 'search_companies' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_profile_posts', 'get_company_posts', 'search_profiles'), there's no indication of when this search tool is preferred over more specific retrieval tools or other search tools.

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