Pipepost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the character limit ('<= 3000 chars'), notes the lack of threading support, mentions authentication requirements ('Requires access_token (w_member_social scope) via setup'), and indicates cost ('FREE — no credit cost'). However, it lacks details on rate limits or error handling, preventing a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential constraints and requirements in a single, efficient sentence. Every element (character limit, threading note, auth, cost) earns its place without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (a write operation with auth requirements), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, constraints, auth, and cost. However, it lacks details on the return value or error cases, which would be helpful for an AI agent, preventing a score of 5.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'text' documented in the schema as 'Post body (<= 3000 chars). LinkedIn has no threading primitive, so only single posts are supported.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 specific action ('Post directly to LinkedIn') with the resource ('single feed post') and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'LinkedIn has no threading, so only single posts are supported,' differentiating it from tools like bluesky_thread or bluesky_reply that handle threaded content.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Post directly to LinkedIn as a single feed post') and implicitly excludes alternatives by stating 'LinkedIn has no threading,' but it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools for other platforms, which would elevate it to a 5.

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